yaaif_ops_session_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'READ-ONLY', which is a valuable safety indicator. However, it does not disclose any other behaviors such as authentication requirements, error handling, pagination behavior, or what happens when the session does not exist. The alias to telemetry is mentioned but not elaborated, so the behavioral profile remains thin.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loading the critical 'READ-ONLY' label. It is efficient and to the point. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, but that is a completeness issue, not a structure issue. The sentence earns its place by stating purpose and alias.

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?

This is a 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description is a one-liner that gives no context about return format, usage examples, or parameter behavior. An agent has almost no information to correctly invoke this tool beyond guessing from the name. The lack of any guidance on the meaning of limit, offset, or include_raw makes it severely incomplete.

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 only 43% (3 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description does not compensate at all – it mentions no parameter details, semantics, or relationships. For a tool with 7 parameters, this is a critical gap. Even the required session_id is left undocumented, making it hard for an agent to know how to construct a correct call.

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 tool is READ-ONLY and retrieves 'LLM transcript messages', and identifies it as an alias of yaaif_ops_telemetry with resource=messages. This distinguishes it from other ops tools like yaaif_ops_session_events and yaaif_ops_session_insights. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', making the action slightly less direct.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the alias, which hints at equivalence but does not explain selection criteria or exclusions. An agent gets no help deciding between this and other session-related tools.

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