get_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and discloses meaningful behaviors: default 7-day window, UTC assumption for timezone-less dates, newest-first ordering, strict offset_id semantics, and an up-to-200 cap. It does not explain offset_id's default-0 sentinel behavior or limit's default, but the disclosed behavior goes well beyond a bare read operation.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds concrete parameter or response behavior. The backtick-delimited parameter list is scannable and dense without redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema property descriptions, the description covers the non-obvious aspects of chat resolution, date filtering, timezone handling, ordering, and response fields. The only material gap is the limit parameter's default/max relationship, but the input schema shows the default and the description states the cap, so an agent can still make safe calls.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates with detailed semantics for chat (types, examples, resolution pointer), since_date (ISO format, examples, timezone handling, default), and offset_id (strictly below, paging). It never names the limit parameter, though its meaning is reasonably inferable from the schema title, default value, and the 'up to 200' statement in the first sentence.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('messages'), and a scope ('from one chat') and states the ordering ('newest first'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_dialogs, get_channel_info, and search_messages, even though those alternatives are not named.

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?

The description gives clear operational context: one chat, recent messages, an optional cutoff, and paging behavior. It explicitly points to get_channel_info for chat resolution notes, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_messages or other sibling tools, so it stops short of 5.

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