messages_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the mild hint of cursor pagination and otherwise discloses no ordering, page-size behavior, or rate/auth constraints beyond the endpoint paths.

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?

One compact line that front-loads what the tool returns and tucks the transport details into parentheses. No filler, though the triple endpoint notation (POST/gRPC/socket) adds little for an agent choosing a tool.

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?

With 4 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent guessing about paging mechanics and channel/chat scoping. It is adequate only as a pointer to the underlying API, not as an invocation guide.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, yet it explains only that a cursor exists and that results belong to a chat. The limit, channelId, and cursor semantics (ordering key, direction, max page size) are undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: a cursor-paginated page of a chat's messages, and names the underlying list endpoint. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like messages_history, messages_search, or messages_get, but the verb+resource pair is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this versus messages_history, messages_search, or messages_get, and no mention of prerequisites or paging workflow. The agent must infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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