get_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. The '[READ ONLY]' prefix is a helpful hint, but it does not explain what kind of messages are returned, whether the data is cached or live, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that likely retrieves diagnostic or status messages.

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 and is technically concise, but it is under-specified. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity, making it more of a stub than a well-structured explanation.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description does not clarify what 'messages' refers to or how this tool differs from the numerous other inspection tools. With no parameters and a generic purpose, the agent lacks enough context to confidently select and invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate because the description cannot compensate for non-existent parameter details.

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 'Inspect Mechanical model data', which is extremely generic. It does not specify what 'messages' are, nor does it distinguish this tool from siblings like get_model_summary, get_geometry_bodies, or get_tree, all of which also inspect mechanical model data. The verb 'inspect' is clear, but the resource is undefined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. No alternatives are mentioned, and no conditions or prerequisites are provided. An agent would have to guess whether this tool is the right choice for retrieving messages.

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