blackboard_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description's non-sending/non-marking-read statement reinforces that profile rather than adding new behavioral context; no contradiction exists.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The second sentence earns its place by stating an important non-behavior.

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?

Despite output schema and annotations covering return shape and safety, the definition omits how the view enum behaves, which filters to use (course, conversation_id), and pagination semantics. For a five-parameter optional tool, the description alone leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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%, yet the description does not explain the five parameters or the meaning of view values beyond vague 'messages/conversations.' The schema provides names/defaults/constraints but no semantic guidance, and the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read existing messages/conversations.' It also differentiates the tool from any messaging action with 'Never sends messages or marks them read,' and the sibling list shows related blackboard read tools, so the scope is unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool (reading messages/conversations) and an explicit boundary ('Never sends messages or marks them read'), so an agent won't use it for sending. It does not name an alternative tool for sending, which keeps it just short of full guidance.

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