read_group_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the output is a 'minimal human-readable timeline', which indicates a simplified format, but it does not clarify default behavior for the optional 'count' parameter, what 'recent' means, or whether any message types are excluded. These omissions leave some ambiguity for the agent.

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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the usage guidance following. There is no redundancy or extraneous information; every sentence contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: the tool's purpose, output format, and when to use it. While it lacks details on edge cases or error behavior, for a simple read-only tool this is adequate. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description's clear indication of a human-readable timeline.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for full coverage.

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 the verb 'Read' with resource 'recent group messages' and specifies the output format as 'minimal human-readable timeline'. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_group_msg_history by contrasting the use cases, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Prefer this for understanding chat') and when to use the alternative ('use get_group_msg_history only when IDs, pagination, or raw segments are needed'). This is exemplary usage guidance that directly addresses tool selection.

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