List messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those annotations: messages are stored, returned newest first, include both directions, and recent messages are the only way to infer who wrote in the absence of a chat-list endpoint.

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 concise sentences cover purpose, ordering, filtering, and a critical API limitation with no filler. Information is front-loaded and every clause contributes to selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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?

For a read-only list operation with optional, well-documented parameters, this description is complete enough. It explains what is listed, the ordering, filterable dimensions, and the key caveat about chat listing, so an agent can use it correctly without additional context.

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 high at 83%, so the schema does most of the parameter documentation work. The description reinforces that account, chat, and direction are filters, but it does not add significant detail about limit, cursor, or projectId beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Describes a specific action (list messages), resource (stored messages), ordering (newest first), and scope (sent and received). Also explicitly distinguishes itself from a chat-list endpoint, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like list_groups or get_message.

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?

States the intended use case: filter by account, chat, and direction to read a conversation. The added note that there is no chat-list endpoint is useful context, though it stops short of naming an alternative sibling or an explicit when-not-to-use scenario.

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