get_messages

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

With no annotations, the description provides basic pagination behavior (max page size, default values) but lacks details on error handling, sorting order, or side effects. It does not confirm read-only nature beyond the verb 'Get'.

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?

Highly concise with a clear structure: a one-line purpose followed by a bulleted argument list. No extraneous text.

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 no output schema, the description fails to explain the return format (e.g., list of message objects, pagination metadata). This is a significant gap for a tool that returns data.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: explains target as phone number or conversation ID, defines page_size max and defaults, and page_number defaults. However, it does not specify conversation ID format or provide examples.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'conversation messages', specifying it works for a contact or conversation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message or list_campaigns.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when not to use it or pointers to related tools for different use cases (e.g., search_contacts).

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