get_new_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It usefully discloses the non-blocking, immediate-return behavior and the 'since starting to listen' buffer window, but says nothing about auth requirements, return format, or how the clear flag interacts with subsequent reads.

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 with the core action and key behavioral trait (non-blocking) front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only buffer-drain tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential behavior (non-blocking, buffer scope). Return values need not be described, but auth/return-shape details are left unaddressed.

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 parameters (clear, chatMid). The description adds only indirect context via the 'since starting to listen' framing and does not elaborate on parameter syntax or effects beyond what the schema provides.

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 (ดึง/retrieve) and resource (ข้อความใหม่/new messages) and adds scope ('since starting to listen'). The parenthetical 'ไม่รอ คืนทันที' (non-blocking, returns immediately) implicitly contrasts with the sibling wait_for_message, giving some differentiation, though it does not name that sibling.

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?

Provides a clear usage context ('use to check if anyone replied while you were away'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it names no explicit alternative (e.g., wait_for_message) and gives no when-not guidance, so usage is only implied.

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