read_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering (most recent) and a hard cap of 100, but says nothing about permissions required, behavior beyond the cap, or whether results are paginated.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the encoding artifacts ("Lê", "máx.") hurt readability and the single sentence leaves no room for structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained. For a read tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, however, the description is thin: it omits permissions, pagination, and the meaning of the limit parameter's default.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies channel_id ("de um canal") and the upper bound for limit (max 100); the default of 50, accepted channel_id format, and ordering implications of limit are left undocumented.

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 verb and resource ("lê as mensagens mais recentes de um canal") and adds a scope bound (max 100). No sibling reads messages, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated; nothing in the text rules out confusion with send_message/delete_message beyond the verb.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. required channel permissions or which channels are readable), and no mention of what to do when more than 100 messages are needed (pagination, or another tool). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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