get_messages

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the name and HTTP endpoint, offering no information about side effects, rate limits, pagination behavior, or data scope beyond the schema defaults.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and minimally wastes words, but it is underspecified. It lacks necessary details such as the list nature of the response or parameter effects, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the output format, how filters like private and type affect results, or any prerequisites like requiring a valid conversation UUID.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the parameter names and types already present in the schema, but does not contradict or improve understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Get Messages' and gives an endpoint, making it clear that the tool retrieves messages from a conversation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_message (singular) which might retrieve a single message, or search_messages which might have different filtering capabilities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_messages or get_message, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.