history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses ordering (newest first), the filtering behavior for the agent parameter, and the exact return shape ('{messages, count}'). This goes beyond a minimal statement by revealing the output structure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only tool, the description covers purpose, ordering, filtering, and return format. It omits explicit explanation of the 'limit' parameter's effect, but the schema provides a default, keeping the description reasonably complete. It does not need to explain return values in more detail in the absence of an output schema.

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 description explains the 'agent' parameter's semantics (filters to sender/recipient), but it does not explain 'limit'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation, leaving 'limit' to be inferred from its name and default value.

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 the tool as a feed of recent messages ordered newest first, explicitly labeling it a 'visibility / audit feed.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'inbox' by implying a broader historical view rather than just received messages.

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 phrase 'visibility / audit feed' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and the agent filter is described. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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