cst_messages_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and the severity list hints at what is logged. However, it says nothing about ordering, whether the window is cleared, how many messages exist, or any rate/permission context, so a 3 reflects modest added value.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terse parenthetical is the only structural aid.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the tool has no required parameters. Still, with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description should have covered what the two parameters do, which it omits.

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% and the description never mentions 'limit' or 'errors_only'. The INFO/WARNING/ERROR list gestures at severity filtering but does not explain how 'errors_only' maps to ERROR-only retrieval or what 'limit' bounds. Two undocumented parameters leave the semantics gap unclosed.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the CST message window') and enumerates the severity content (INFO/WARNING/ERROR), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent diagnostic siblings like cst_health_check_tool or cst_read_result_tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many other diagnostics/read tools in the sibling list, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage must be inferred solely from the name and the parenthetical severity list.

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