get_messages

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds value by explaining severity ordering, severity threshold behavior, and case-insensitive regex filtering. It does not mention output format or pagination, but for a read-only query tool this is a minor gap.

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 tight sentences deliver the core purpose first and then parameter semantics. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only filtered-list tool, the description covers the main resource, sort order, and filter semantics, while the schema supplies required parameters and defaults. It does not describe the output structure, but the return type is essentially named and no output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the semantics of severity and pattern. However, it leaves project and limit undocumented, so it only partially covers the four parameters and relies on schema titles/defaults for the rest.

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 identifies a specific resource: errors and warnings from the latest run of each named stage (synthesis, debug core, place, route, bitstream), and adds sort order. It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling reporting tools such as get_build_status or list_reports.

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 scope and filter semantics imply when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer its role among many reporting siblings.

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