mess_get_skip_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)'), but doesn't elaborate on what the skip window represents, potential errors, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. However, the Args section is overly terse ('params: auth_key or session') and could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness. Overall, it's efficient but slightly under-specified.

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) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the return type, but with an output schema present, this isn't strictly necessary. It fails to explain the skip window's purpose or relation to other tools, leaving contextual gaps despite the structured data support.

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%, placing full burden on the description to explain parameters. The description mentions 'params: auth_key or session' but lacks details on their semantics, optionality, or how they affect the operation. It doesn't clarify if both can be used together or if one is preferred, leaving significant gaps beyond the schema.

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 skip window time in seconds.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('skip window time'), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mess_get_cancellation_window' or 'mess_get_extras_window' that also retrieve window-related information, which prevents a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like 'mess_get_all_windows' or 'mess_get_registration_window' that might retrieve similar or overlapping data, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual triggers for invoking this tool.

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