get_messages

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that reading is non-destructive by default and that 'clear=true' deletes messages after reading. It does not cover error states, rate limits, or idempotency, which are gaps.

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 concise with about 5 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the channel conventions and the clear option. No fluff 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?

Without an output schema, the description fails to specify the return format or structure of messages (e.g., plain text, JSON). It also does not mention error conditions or edge cases. This is a significant gap for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the channel naming conventions and the effect of 'clear', which are not fully captured in the schema's parameter descriptions. This elevates it.

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 the verb 'Read' and resource 'messages from a channel', and adds 'Returns all messages in chronological order,' making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling 'send_message' without explicit comparison. Could be more specific about the nature of 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 provides channel naming conventions (run_id, step_name) and explains the 'clear' parameter for consumption, which guides usage. However, it does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives or any preconditions, leaving some ambiguity.

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