get-messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core read operation but omits key behaviors such as pagination semantics (direction, page_size), whether messages are returned in chronological order, or any side effects. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with multiple retrieval options.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, front-loading the primary action and resource. No filler or redundant information, making it maximally concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has pagination parameters (direction, page_size) and no output schema, but the description explains none of this mechanics. The agent would not know how to use direction or page_size correctly, or what the response structure looks like, leaving the description insufficient for effective invocation.

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 only 33% (only chat_id has a description), and the description adds no value beyond restating that chat_id accepts UUID or numeric id. Direction and page_size remain semantically unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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's function: returning message history for a specific chat, with the identification method (UUID or numeric id) explicitly mentioned. This distinguishes it from siblings like send-message or list-chats, 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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