read_message

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

The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action. It does not disclose whether this is a write operation (mutation), required permissions, side effects, or return values. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal detail.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and clearly states the purpose. It earns its place but is extremely brief given the tool's complexity and lack of other metadata.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the effect on message state, required permissions, or how this relates to other tools like 'get_messages'. The complexity is moderate but not fully addressed.

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 is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already describes each parameter. No extra context is provided for parameter usage or constraints.

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 ('Mark message as read') and resource ('message'), indicating a specific verb and object. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_messages' or 'send_text', which might also affect read status or message handling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios (e.g., after reading a message), or exclusions.

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