Get Messages

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic retrieval action. It does not mention filtering, ordering, pagination, or any limits, nor does it contradict the annotations.

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 with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the verb and object.

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 tool with 5 parameters and a sibling search_messages, this description is too sparse to support selection and correct invocation. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the description fails to explain filtering capabilities, pagination defaults, or how this differs from related message retrieval tools.

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 only 20% (just message_filter has a description), yet the tool description adds no explanation for user_google_email, space_id, order_by, or page_size. The phrase 'from a Google Chat space' weakly maps to space_id but is not enough to compensate for the low 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and names a concrete resource ('Google Chat space'), making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_messages' or 'search_drive_files', so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_messages. The description is a single statement with no context, exclusions, or alternative references.

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