get_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get messages,' which implies a read operation, but does not mention pagination, ordering, size limits, or potential errors. The existence of limit and offset parameters in the schema hints at pagination, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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?

A single, clear sentence that states the purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and is appropriately sized – no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 lack of annotations, an output schema, and the presence of pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format (e.g., array of messages), any constraints like maximum message count, or the behavior when no messages exist. An agent cannot fully predict the tool's response or edge cases from this description alone.

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%, with each parameter having a description (chat_id, limit, offset). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It correctly implies that messages are fetched for a specific chat, but does not enrich the semantics of limit or offset. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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 and resource: 'get messages from a JivoSite chat by chat_id'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_chats (list chats) and send_message (send a message), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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. The description does not mention conditions like when to use get_chats instead, or any prerequisites (e.g., chat existence). The only hint is the parameter name chat_id, but no explicit context is given.

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