Bot: read chat

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

The description explicitly says the tool will 'mark the chat read', a state-changing side effect, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (no environment modification). The local-store disclosure is genuinely useful, but the stated write behavior directly conflicts with the declared read-only contract, which is the dominant factor.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and ordering; the second sentence supplies data-provenance context that earns its place. Slightly more prose than strictly needed for such a short tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers data provenance and the read-marking side effect. The only gap is the misalignment of that side effect with the declared read-only annotation.

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 both chat_id and limit fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what counts as 'recent' versus limit) beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show a chat's recent messages'), plus ordering ('oldest first') and directionality ('both directions'). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like bot_get_new_messages (incoming only) and bot_search_messages, but never names an alternative explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 conveys the context (chat history, local store) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing guidance among the many sibling chat/message tools. Usage is only implied.

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