abnormal_messages_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries a heavier burden. It states that the tool returns 'message IDs and summary data,' clarifying it as a read operation. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description adds some value but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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 concise at two sentences, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose and the second detailing the return value. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more compact without losing meaning.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. It explains the input and output sufficiently for an agent to select and invoke it. No additional context about pagination or limits is necessary for this straightforward case.

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 coverage for the single required parameter (threatId) is 100%, so the description's mention of 'The threat ID (UUID) to list messages for' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. At baseline with high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('messages contained within a specific threat case'), and the output ('Returns message IDs and summary data for all emails associated with the threat'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like abnormal_messages_get (single message) and abnormal_threats_list (list threats) by specifying the scope ('within a specific threat case').

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 usage when you have a threatId and want to list its messages, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to siblings. No guidance on prerequisites or alternatives is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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