search_messages

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and open-world, and the description adds pagination and limit semantics without contradicting those annotations. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like sort behavior or result shape, though an output schema exists to cover return values.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope; the second adds concretely useful parameter behavior about limit and its default. 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 simple three-parameter search tool, the description covers scope and limit, and the output schema exists to handle return values. However, it omits guidance on query format and sort semantics, and it does not mention relevant sibling tools for channel-scoped searches, leaving the agent with some inference to do.

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 for the schema's silence. It only clarifies the limit parameter, leaving query and sort without semantic explanation. The sort enum values 'timestamp' and 'score' are not elaborated, and query syntax is not addressed.

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 action ('Search for messages') and the workspace scope, which distinguishes it from channel-scoped alternatives like search_channel_messages. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_channel_messages or get_channel_history. The phrase 'in the workspace' implies a global search scope, but no exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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