Get Annotated Message Tool

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what the output looks like or any side effects. It is a meta-description about annotations, not actual tool behavior.

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?

While the description is a single sentence, it is under-specified and lacks actionable information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; here it fails to convey necessary details.

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 has two parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or its purpose more completely. It does not, leaving the agent with virtually no understanding of how to invoke or use the tool correctly.

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 schema itself documents both parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is vague: 'Demonstrates how annotations can be used to provide metadata about content.' It does not specify what the tool actually returns or does, leaving the agent uncertain about its purpose. It fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'echo' or 'get-env', which are also vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it useless for decision-making.

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