agentsecure.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 does so well: it discloses the recipient-match requirement, error conditions, local state plus audit update on first read, idempotent re-reads, redacted body behavior, and the critical caveat that the recipient check compares caller-supplied IDs rather than authenticated identities.

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 dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then prerequisites, then return/idempotency semantics, then redaction caveat, then the alternative tool. Every sentence adds distinct 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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: usage context, error behavior, return shape (status/read_at), idempotency, redaction constraints, and the audit implication.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating that agent_id must match the record's recipient and by reinforcing that the check is against caller-supplied labels, not authenticated identities.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve and acknowledge one local Mesh message') plus the scope ('after listing the inbox') and the side effect (acknowledgement). This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling list_messages.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use agentsecure.list_messages to inspect without marking read, and describes the prerequisite of listing the inbox. The alternative and the condition that selects it are both stated.

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