get_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action and return type. It misses critical behavioral details like pagination handling (implied by 'page_size' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, making it insufficient for a mutation-like read operation.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, but the 'Returns' section is redundant as it restates the obvious without adding value. It could be more efficient by omitting unnecessary details or integrating them better.

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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output format beyond a vague 'Formatted messages', leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'service', 'user_google_email', or 'space_id' mean, nor does it clarify the 'order_by' default or 'page_size' implications, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('messages from a Google Chat space'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_messages' or 'list_spaces', which could provide similar functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 like 'search_messages' or 'list_spaces'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as authentication needs or space access, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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