query_bag_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses filtering behavior and pagination (limit, offset) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. It also does not mention error handling for missing run_id or performance implications, which 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?

The description is concise: a single sentence overview followed by a well-organized Args list. Every line adds value, and the critical information is front-loaded. There is no unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 is not required to detail return values. It covers all 7 parameters adequately. However, it omits potential edge cases like empty results or error handling for invalid run_id, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent.

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?

Despite schema description coverage being 0%, the description adds substantial meaning to each parameter. It provides examples (e.g., '/scan' for topic, '-30s' for time_start) and clarifies defaults (limit=50, offset=0) and roles (run_id as bag directory). This goes well beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 'Query bag messages filtered by topic and time range,' which is a specific verb (query) and resource (bag messages). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_bag_topics, which lists topics rather than messages. The filtering criteria are explicitly mentioned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for querying filtered bag messages, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings (e.g., list_bag_topics for topic discovery) are included. Usage context is implied but not formally stated.

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