read_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important behavioral trait: reading has a side effect on the read-state only when mark_as_read=true, plus the oldest-to-newest ordering. It omits return format and any failure behavior, but the critical state-change disclosure is 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loading what the tool does before the default/flag nuance. No filler; every clause adds information, though it could be marginally tighter.

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?

For a read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition covers purpose and the read-state side effect adequately but leaves include_html unexplained and does not describe what the returned conversation looks like.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It meaningfully explains mark_as_read (effect and default), but include_html is never mentioned and conversation_id is only implicit, so roughly one of three parameters is covered.

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?

Names a specific verb (reads) and resource (a complete messaging conversation, all messages oldest to newest), giving scope and ordering. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_messages, and the singular name 'read_message' belies the whole-conversation scope.

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?

Explains the default (does not mark as read) versus the mark_as_read=true variant, which is genuine usage guidance for that flag. However it names no alternative tool and gives no condition for choosing this over list_messages, leaving the key routing decision to inference.

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