get_dialog

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

Discloses that it returns messages in chronological order (oldest first). The existing annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already indicate safe operation; the description adds useful ordering context.

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?

Very concise: three short sentences that cover the main action, usage guidance, return order, and related tools. No unnecessary words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description appropriately omits return field details. It provides ordering info. However, it lacks explanation of pagination via 'page' parameter, which is a minor gap for a simple 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description only explains that the 'username' parameter identifies the user. The 'page' parameter is not explained at all, leaving the agent without knowledge of pagination behavior.

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?

Clearly states the action: 'Get messages from a dialog with a user by their username.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_dialogs (list all dialogs) and send_message (send a reply).

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?

Explicitly says 'When to use: for reading correspondence with a specific user.' Also mentions related tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, though the context is clear.

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