Get Channel Message Replies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns reply content, sender info, and timestamps, which is useful but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or how the limit parameter affects results. With annotations covering the core behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and result. It is appropriately sized for a read-only retrieval tool and contains no wasted words. It could add a note about pagination or limit behavior, but it is not overly verbose.

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 list tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or how the limit parameter interacts with the 'all replies' claim. An agent might assume 'all' means unlimited, while the schema shows a default limit of 20 and a maximum of 50. This is a minor but real gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does confirm the tool returns replies for a specific message, which aligns with messageId. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('all replies to a specific message in a channel'), and the returned data ('reply content, sender information, and timestamps'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_channel_messages (which lists messages) and reply_to_channel_message (which creates 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?

The description implies the tool is for reading replies to a specific message, which is clear from the name and description. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_channel_messages or search_messages, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., needing the messageId from a prior call).

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