get_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that messages are chronologically ordered, include metadata, and support filtering. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description adds context but lacks depth for a 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 well-structured with a summary line followed by Args and Returns sections. It is concise but not overly brief; every sentence adds value. A minor improvement could be removing the blank line after the summary, but overall it's effective.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context signals indicate true), the description need not detail returns, but it still summarizes the return type (list of Message objects with metadata). All parameters are documented. The tool has moderate complexity with 4 params, and the description covers filtering, ordering, and return structure adequately.

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%, meaning the schema defines no descriptions. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: chat_id, limit, before, after, including defaults and expected formats (ISO-8601 timestamps). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 it retrieves chronologically ordered messages from a specific chat with metadata and filtering. The verb 'get' and resource 'messages from a specific chat' are precise. It distinguishes from siblings like search_message_contents and list_chats by focusing on a specific chat's message history.

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 usage for fetching messages from a chat with optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_message_contents or get_person_messages. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are provided.

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