View Application Messages

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, aligning with the read-only nature. The description adds valuable behavioral details: messages are sorted newest first and paginated. However, it does not disclose any further constraints like rate limits or access requirements.

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 succinct (one sentence) yet informative, covering the core functionality, sorting, and pagination. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and read-only nature with annotations, the description covers purpose and basic behavior (sort order, pagination). However, no output schema exists, and the description does not specify the structure of each message, which could be useful for an agent.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the format or default behavior for page/limit. 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the message thread for a job application, specifying verb ('Get'), resource ('message thread'), and context ('between user and company'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_application (application details) and send_application_message (write operation).

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 usage for viewing messages but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_application_events or how it relates to other application-related tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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