list_chat_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it states newest-first ordering, page_token continuation, snippet vs full body behavior, include_raw semantics, and the exact return shape. It does not mention authorization or error behavior, but for a read-only list operation the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 one-line summary, labeled Args, and a Returns section. Every line adds useful information beyond the schema, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it documents all parameters, defaults, optional behaviors, and the return contract. It stops short of explaining error conditions or explicitly routing between chat and channel message tools, but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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 fully compensate. It does: every parameter is explained with meaningful semantics—limit range/default, page_token as continuation, include_body's snippet vs card payload behavior, include_raw's 'raw' property, and chat_id provenance from list_chats.

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 opens with 'List messages in a chat, newest first,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and ordering. It also anchors chat_id as 'Graph chat id (from list_chats),' distinguishing this from the channel- and message-list siblings, though it never explicitly names the alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over list_channel_messages, list_message_replies, list_messages, or search_messages. The only contextual hint is 'chat_id: Graph chat id (from list_chats),' which implies a prerequisite but does not explain selection criteria or exclusions.

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