List conversation messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to disclose safety. It adds context about the Chats API add-on but does not describe return format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. No contradiction with annotations. The additional context is minimal but not required.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The parenthetical adds useful context without bloat. Every word earns its place; there is 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about pagination, ordering, or the actual message structure returned. The annotation openWorldHint suggests broader context, but the description does not elaborate. It is minimally viable with clear gaps in operational specifics.

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 50%: conversation_id is described in the schema as 'Talk/conversation ID', but the optional 'limit' parameter has no description. The tool description mentions 'messages from a conversation' but does not explain limit or any additional parameter semantics, failing to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'messages from a conversation,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like kommo_conversations_list (conversations themselves) and kommo_conversations_messages_send (sending messages). The parenthetical 'Chats API add-on / talks messages' further clarifies the specific domain.

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 fetching message history from a conversation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the use case, but there is no explicit guidance.

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