conduyt_list_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully adds ordering ('Newest first') and an auth requirement ('Requires communications:view'), but never states that the operation is read-only or what the response/envelope looks like beyond the pagination parameters in the schema.

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?

Roughly four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the filtering hint and permission note. No filler, though the direction hint partially repeats the enum description already present in the schema.

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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, ordering, filtering intent, and the required permission. The remaining gap — return shape/pagination metadata — is largely covered by the page/per_page parameters in the schema.

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 100%, so every filter (status, channel, contactId, direction, page, per_page) is already documented. The description only adds the intent behind direction='inbound'; it adds no syntax or semantics for the other five parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List individual messages'), states the two scopes (account-wide or a single contact), and implies message-level granularity versus a conversation-level sibling. It does not name get_conversation or any other sibling explicitly, so differentiation is 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?

It provides a concrete use case — 'Use direction="inbound" to surface replies that need a response' — and explains the account-wide vs. per-contact scoping choice. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying when a different tool (e.g., get_conversation) would be better.

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