جزئیات یک پیام (چه کسی دیده)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain behavior beyond that: Mizito only permits editing/deleting before the other party has seen the message, and it discloses the return payload (receipts plus the message itself). That is useful non-obvious context.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the primary payload (who has seen the message and when) leads, with the edit/delete rule and message body following. No padding, though the trailing 'Also returns the message itself' is mildly redundant with the opening clause.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does so adequately: read receipts, edit/delete eligibility, and the message. The read-only/open-world annotations carry the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether timestamps are absolute or relative.

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 100%, so both parameters (message_id, conversation_id) are already fully documented with provenance. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail for the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieving info about a specific message – read receipts (who has seen it and when), edit/delete eligibility, and the message body. This clearly separates it from mizito_get_messages (bulk listing) and mizito_search_messages. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated – an agent can infer this is the tool for per-message read receipts, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. The schema descriptions point to mizito_get_messages/mizito_search_messages only as id sources, not as routing advice.

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