get_channel_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and gives no information about ordering, pagination, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, which are critical for a tool with multiple filter parameters.

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 that directly conveys the core function without unnecessary fluff. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the core purpose.

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?

With 5 parameters including complex filtering (before/after/around), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain default behavior (e.g., what is returned when no optional parameters are provided) or the structure of the response, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any extra semantic meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('取得します' - retrieves) and resource ('Discordチャンネルのメッセージ履歴' - Discord channel message history). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_message (single message) and get_pinned_messages.

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 usage context is implied by the description (for channel message history), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It lacks guidance on choosing between this and get_message/get_pinned_messages.

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