mess_get_all_windows

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description adds minimal value. It mentions authentication via 'auth_key or session', which is useful context but covered in the schema. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary details, but the Args section could be more integrated. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste, though slightly fragmented in structure.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, rich annotations (read-only, etc.), and the presence of an output schema detailing the JSON structure, the description is reasonably complete. It covers authentication needs and return format, though it lacks usage guidelines and deeper parameter insights.

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 0%, but the description adds that 'params' accepts 'auth_key or session', clarifying the authentication requirement. However, it does not explain the structure or usage of these parameters beyond what the schema's AuthInput defines, providing only basic compensation for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all window times in seconds', listing specific windows (cancellation, registration, feedback, extras, skip). It distinguishes from siblings like mess_get_cancellation_window which retrieves individual windows, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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. While siblings like mess_get_cancellation_window exist for individual windows, the description does not mention them or specify scenarios for bulk retrieval versus single-window queries, leaving usage unclear.

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