read_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, output format, and channel matching via quick switcher. While it lacks auth or error details, these are reasonable for a read operation.

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 front-loaded purpose, followed by specific details on channel matching, limit, and output format. Every sentence serves a purpose with no repetition.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description explains output format effectively. It covers channel behavior and limit semantics. Missing error info is acceptable for a simple read tool.

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 0%, so description must add parameter meaning. It explains channel matching via quick switcher and limit fetches most-recent messages. Both parameters are addressed, adding value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads most recent messages, specifying the resource (messages) and action (read). It distinguishes from siblings like list_channels and read_thread, which are different operations.

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 context (getting recent messages) and notes it is read-only. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_thread, though sibling names make distinctions clear.

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