get_chat_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not mention ordering, pagination, date-filter inclusivity, output format, or any permissions/rate limits.

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 short sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. It is economical, though it sacrifices behavioral and usage detail that other dimensions require.

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 read operation, the description plus the fully described schema is enough to construct a basic call with chat_id and optional filters. However, with no output schema and no guidance differentiating it from search_messages, the agent still faces moderate uncertainty.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description, including default limit, chat_id format, and from/to date filters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'message history' precisely define the operation, and 'for a specific chat' constrains scope. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_chats and send_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?

The description implies a use case—fetching message history for one chat—but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over search_messages, nor any exclusions or alternative routing. The agent must infer selection from tool names and schema.

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