blackboard_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Never sends messages or marks them read,' which clarifies the tool's non-mutating behavior beyond the generic annotation hints. It also reinforces the openWorldHint by framing the tool as reading existing data. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentence followed by a one-sentence disclaimer. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds only essential constraints. No wasted words.

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?

The description is sufficient for a read-only list/retrieve tool, especially with the annotations covering safety and idempotency. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. The main gap is that the description doesn't specify how the 'view' parameter changes the output or which combinations of parameters are allowed, but the output schema and enum values partially compensate. Overall complete enough for an agent to select and invoke safely.

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 compensate. The description explains that the tool reads messages/conversations and clarifies the 'view' dimension (summary, conversations, messages, participants) by naming them, which adds meaning beyond the raw enum. However, it doesn't explain how 'course', 'conversation_id', 'limit', and 'offset' interact semantically, so the agent still needs to infer some parameter relationships from the schema names.

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 tool reads existing messages/conversations, and explicitly disclaims sending messages or marking them read. The verb 'Read' plus resource 'messages/conversations' makes the purpose unambiguous. This also distinguishes it from potential sibling messaging tools (e.g., connects_chats) as a read-only Blackboard messages tool.

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 read-only usage and says what it never does, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives such as blackboard_discussions or connects_chats. It gives a clear context (read-only Blackboard messages) but no exclusions beyond the disclaimers. It does not name alternative tools for sending messages or marking read, which an agent might infer are not covered by this tool.

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