get_shared_messages

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the default window (newest 100), the 200 clamp, the limit-0-means-default rule, and that ordering applies only within the selected window. It omits return shape, permissions, and error behavior, but the window/paging semantics it does give are non-obvious and genuinely useful.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and the default/clamp/paging rules follow in the order an agent needs them. Every sentence carries a distinct, actionable fact.

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 read-only, six-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the important query semantics (window size, clamping, paging direction, ordering scope) completely enough to invoke correctly. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against get_monitor_messages/get_monitor_session_messages, which is left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the field docs: it frames limit/offset as a sliding window over newest-first history and clarifies that order/order_by sort only within that window rather than globally. That interplay of parameters is not derivable from the individual schema descriptions alone.

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?

Clear verb+resource: retrieves shared (playground) messages for a given source flow, with the 'shared/playground' qualifier that separates it from the monitor-message siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so the boundaries with get_monitor_messages and get_monitor_session_messages are inferred rather than stated.

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?

Provides practical in-tool guidance ('use offset to page into older history'), which implies the paging workflow, but gives no when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives rule and no prerequisites. An agent can use it, but must guess why it would pick this over the monitor variants.

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