foundry_list_chat_messages

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

The readOnlyHint: true annotation already conveys the safe read-only nature of the tool. The description adds only 'optional pagination and filters,' which is more about parameters than behavioral traits. It does not disclose scope, ordering, or handling of edge cases, so transparency is adequate but not enriched.

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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get chat messages') and adds relevant qualifiers ('optional pagination and filters') without waste.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and a sparse description. While the purpose is clear, the description omits details about which filters are available and what the response structure looks like. For a listing tool, this leaves some gaps for the agent, but the overall simplicity keeps it from being 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?

With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description should compensate by explaining the un-covered parameters. It mentions 'pagination and filters' generically but does not name which parameters correspond to each role (e.g., limit/offset vs. speaker/chatType). This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names and required flags.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('chat messages'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like foundry_send_chat_message, foundry_delete_chat_message, and foundry_clear_chat. Mentioning 'optional pagination and filters' further clarifies the scope of the operation.

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 for retrieving chat messages and notes optional pagination/filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send/delete/clear chat. There are no exclusion criteria or comparative guidance, making the usage guidance minimal.

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