read_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 disclose the newest-first ordering and the semantic roles of offset_id/min_id/search, which are important behavioral details. It does not address potential side effects like marking messages read, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 short, front-loaded with the core behavior, and uses a scannable bullet-style list for parameters. Every sentence adds practical information with no filler or 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?

The description is largely complete for invoking the tool: it names the resource, provides ordering, and explains the key filtering and pagination parameters. The presence of an output schema covers return values. Minor gaps are the lack of explicit chat/limit semantics and no routing guidance toward sibling tools, but these do not critically impede correct use.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively for the three most nuanced parameters: offset_id (paging back), min_id (polling for newer messages), and search (text containment). It omits explicit semantics for chat and limit, but the required chat is self-evident from the tool's purpose and limit has a default, so the added value is strong overall.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Read messages from a chat, newest first.' It adds ordering behavior and implies the chat scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_messages, which may also retrieve matching messages, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives useful contextual instructions for paging back with offset_id and polling for new messages with min_id, which helps an agent choose how to invoke the tool. It does not, however, provide tool-selection guidance versus alternatives such as search_messages, so the when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance is only implied.

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