bitrix24_im_chat_messages

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It expertly discloses the lossy nature of 'text' field, warns against using it for editing, and includes a real-world incident to underscore the risk. It also explains attachment handling, including default inlining of images and listing of non-image files. This is exceptional behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured: clear purpose, usage guidance, and then critical behavioral warnings. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds unique value, such as the pagination hint for 'firstId' and the editing caution. Minor redundancy could be tightened but overall efficient.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers return fields (text, textRaw, files) and attachment behavior. It explains pagination, image inlining, and provides cross-reference to bitrix24_im_file_get. All essential context for an agent to use the tool correctly is present.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying DIALOG_ID formats for task chats ('chatNNN') and explaining the behavior of 'includeImages' and 'maxImages' defaults. This enriches understanding without redundancy.

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 clearly states 'Read messages from a Bitrix24 IM chat' with a specific verb and resource. It further specifies use cases (task chats, group chats, 1-on-1 dialogs) and distinguishes from sibling tools like bitrix24_im_message_send, bitrix24_im_message_update, etc., by its reading function.

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 explicitly guides when to use the tool ('Use for reading task chats, group chats, or 1-on-1 dialogs') and provides critical formatting for DIALOG_ID. It also directs to bitrix24_im_file_get for non-image files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for writing messages) or list sibling alternatives for other actions.

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