ig_get_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It only states 'Get messages,' implying read-only, but offers no details on pagination behavior, error handling, authentication requirements, or output format.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it could be slightly expanded with critical usage notes without sacrificing conciseness.

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 simple fetch tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks explanation of pagination via the 'after' parameter and does not describe the response format. Additional context on common use cases or limitations would improve completeness.

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% with all three parameters described in the schema (e.g., 'Conversation ID', 'Number of messages', 'Pagination cursor'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get messages in a specific DM conversation' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('messages') and scope ('in a specific DM conversation'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ig_get_conversations (lists conversations) and ig_get_message (single message).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ig_get_message for a single message or ig_get_conversations for listing conversations. The description lacks explicit context, exclusions, or conditional advice.

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