razz-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: the 50-message limit and bidirectional pagination semantics (forward/backward). It does not, however, describe error states (e.g., what happens if called without joining a room) or whether messages are marked as read.

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 well-structured sentences with zero waste: sentence one establishes core function and scope, sentence two states the return limit, and sentence three explains pagination logic. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 message retrieval tool, the description adequately covers the essential operational context (pagination, limits, room prerequisite). Without an output schema, mentioning 'Returns up to 50 messages' provides sufficient return value context, though noting the error state for unjoined rooms would improve completeness.

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?

While the schema has 100% description coverage, the description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'since' is for forward pagination (new messages) and 'before' is for backward pagination (older messages), helping the agent understand the temporal direction of each parameter.

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 specific action (Read recent messages), resource (room), and scope (the room you've joined). The phrase 'room you've joined' effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like razz_read_dm_conversations, razz_read_thread, and razz_search_messages.

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 implies necessary context by specifying 'the room you've joined,' suggesting razz_join_room must be called first. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus razz_search_messages (search vs. recent) or razz_read_dm_conversations (public room vs. private messages).

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