mess_get_extras_window

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description adds minimal value. It specifies the return type ('JSON integer (seconds)'), which is useful but not detailed beyond what the output schema likely provides. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter/return details in brief bullet points. Every sentence earns its place, avoiding redundancy and maintaining clarity without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (1 parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter basics, and return type, though it could benefit from more usage context or sibling differentiation to be fully comprehensive.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining that 'params' accepts 'auth_key or session', clarifying the authentication options. However, it doesn't detail the structure or usage of these parameters beyond the schema's definitions, leaving some gaps in full semantic understanding.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('extra registration window time in seconds'), distinguishing it from siblings like mess_get_registration_window or mess_get_all_windows. It precisely defines what the tool retrieves, avoiding vagueness or tautology.

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, such as how it differs from mess_get_registration_window or mess_get_all_windows. The description lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering only basic functional information without usage direction.

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