mess_get_registration_window

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the return type ('JSON integer (seconds)'), which is useful but doesn't elaborate on rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the schema, or error conditions. It doesn't contradict annotations, so it adds some value beyond them.

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 concise and well-structured with three clear sections: purpose, args, and returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by integrating the sections more fluidly, but it's efficiently front-loaded with the main purpose.

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, simple return), annotations covering safety, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns: JSON integer (seconds)'), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the purpose, parameter semantics, and return type, though it lacks usage guidelines and deeper parameter explanations. For this simple read-only tool, it's adequate but not exhaustive.

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 includes an 'Args' section stating 'params: auth_key or session', which adds basic semantic information about the single parameter. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between auth_key and session (e.g., that one is required, or they are alternatives), and it lacks details on format or usage beyond what's implied. With 0% schema coverage, this partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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 registration window time in seconds.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('registration window time'), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'mess_get_cancellation_window' or 'mess_get_skip_window' which likely retrieve different window types. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 prerequisites, context, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'mess_get_cancellation_window' or 'mess_get_all_windows'. Without usage guidelines, the agent must infer when this specific window retrieval is appropriate.

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