portal_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. 'List' clearly signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential behavioral details such as pagination behavior, ordering, or whether the default view is inbox when the view parameter is omitted, beyond what the schema already states.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation ('List') and the resource scope immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description plus schema is largely sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is the absence of any description of the return shape or pagination behavior, but the core semantics are clear.

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%, so the schema already documents both page and view. The description adds no deeper parameter semantics beyond tying the view values to inbox, sent, and archive, which the enum already conveys. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('messages') and explicitly names the three scopes: inbox, sent, or archived. This differentiates it from sibling tools like portal_send_message and portal_get_message, and clarifies it is a list operation rather than a single-message or send operation.

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 the tool is used to list messages in inbox, sent, or archive views, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as portal_inbox or portal_get_message. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided.

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