List Support Messages

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false), so the bar is lower. The description doesn't contradict these annotations (it describes a listing operation which aligns with readOnly). While it doesn't add much behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, it doesn't need to compensate for missing annotations either.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an agent understand or use the tool. Every sentence should earn its place, and this single sentence doesn't earn its place by adding value.

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 that this is a list operation with good annotations and schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'support messages' are, what format they return in (no output schema exists), or how this tool fits into the broader context of messaging/support operations. The description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 4 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'List support messages' is a tautology that restates the tool name/title without adding any meaningful detail. It doesn't specify what 'support messages' are, what resource they belong to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'dual_list_messages' or 'dual_send_support_message'. The description provides no additional context beyond the obvious from the name.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or how it differs from related sibling tools like 'dual_list_messages' or 'dual_send_support_message'. The agent receives no usage context whatsoever.

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