List Negotiation Messages

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. "List all messages" implies a read-only operation and the legacy/service-message caveats add real context, but nothing is said about pagination behavior, permissions, or volume limits for a thread that could be long.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the caveat and parameter hint appended. Nothing is redundant, though the "Note:" clause packs two unrelated ideas together.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should say more about what a message record contains and how paging works. It is adequate to identify the tool and one parameter but not to call it confidently.

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 all four parameters depend on the description. It explains with_text_only meaningfully but leaves nid, page, and per_page undocumented, so it compensates for only part of the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List all messages of a negotiation thread") and clarifies the thread types (response or invitation), which distinguishes it reasonably well from the sibling list_chat_messages. It stops short of explicitly naming the chat siblings it should be distinguished from.

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 note that hh.ru treats negotiation messaging as legacy and "recommends chats" gives a soft steer toward the chat tools, but never names list_chat_messages or states the condition under which a caller should abandon this tool. Use of with_text_only to skip service messages is a useful usage hint.

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