get_mess_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'List' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or provides real-time versus cached data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'List' (action), 'all available messes' (scope), 'with their status (open/closed)' (output detail). No wasted words or redundant information.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool returns. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions. The description meets minimum viability but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than what it accepts.

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 ('List') and resource ('all available messes') with specific output information ('with their status (open/closed)'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_menu or get_meal_timings by focusing on mess availability rather than meal details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools in the list.

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, timing considerations, or relationships to other tools like get_meal_capacities or get_registrations that might provide overlapping information. 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.