basecamp_list_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List all messages' without detailing pagination, ordering, return format, or any side effects. There is no indication of whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has limits. This lack of contextual detail undermines transparency.

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, straightforward sentence: 'List all messages in a message board'. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no redundant information, and is perfectly concise for the simple operation it describes.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core purpose but omits any details about return value expectations, edge cases, or additional context that would help an agent fully understand the tool's behavior. It is not severely lacking, but there is room for improvement.

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 50%, with only message_board_id having a description. The description adds context by saying 'in a message board', which aligns with message_board_id, but it does not explain project_id or the relationship between project and board. This provides marginal value over the schema, not enough to fully compensate for 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?

The description clearly states the action 'List all messages' with a specific resource 'message board', and it distinguishes this from sibling tools like basecamp_get_message (singular) and basecamp_create_message. The scope ('all messages') is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 such as basecamp_get_message or basecamp_list_campfire_lines. It simply states what it does, without any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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