Get Messages

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

Annotations fully cover the behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'Retrieves messages from a Google Chat space,' which is consistent and clarifies the scope but does not introduce new behavioral information beyond 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 sentence, which is very brief. While there is no wasted text, it is too short to provide necessary context for a tool with 5 parameters. A bit more structure (e.g., listing key parameters or usage) would improve it.

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 number of parameters, siblings, and the existence of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention pagination (page_size), ordering (order_by), or filtering capabilities, which are important for correct invocation. The output schema may cover return values, but the description lacks essential context for selection and use.

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% (only 'message_filter' has a description). The tool description itself does not describe any parameter semantics, leaving most parameters (user_google_email, space_id, page_size, order_by) undocumentated in both the description and schema. The description fails to compensate for this gap.

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 'Retrieves messages from a Google Chat space.' The verb 'retrieves' is specific, and the resource 'messages from a Google Chat space' distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_messages' (which searches across spaces) and 'list_spaces' (which lists spaces).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving messages from a specific space (requiring space_id) or when to prefer 'search_messages' for broader queries. No suggestions or exclusions are given.

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