mess_get_cancellation_window

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds that it returns 'JSON integer (seconds)', which provides useful context about the return format, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations cover.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses only three sentences. It's appropriately sized for a simple getter tool, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant given the structured schema fields.

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 simplicity (single parameter, annotations covering safety, output schema likely defining the integer return), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, the parameter's purpose, and the return format. For a straightforward read operation, this provides adequate context without over-explaining.

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's 'Args' section documents that 'params' accepts 'auth_key or session'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, explaining the purpose of the single parameter. However, it doesn't fully detail the AuthInput structure or usage nuances, leaving some gaps.

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 purpose: 'Get the cancellation window time in seconds.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cancellation window time'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mess_get_cancellations_count' or 'mess_get_skip_window' which might retrieve related but different information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or relationship to sibling tools like 'mess_cancel_registration' or 'mess_get_all_windows'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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