ofw_get_message

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

The description discloses that fetching from OFW marks unread inbox messages as read, which is a side effect beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint=false). It also explains cache behavior and how drafts are handled, providing valuable behavioral context.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and covers key details. It is concise but contains necessary information about caching and behavioral differences for drafts. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description explains return field values for drafts (folder, fromUser, sentAt, fetchedBodyAt) and mentions folder values for inbox/sent messages. However, it does not fully describe the structure of the response, error handling, or what happens if the message is not found. Given no output schema, some gaps remain.

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 single parameter 'messageId' has schema description coverage at 100%. The description adds meaning by noting that draft IDs are accepted and routed via the drafts cache, which is not in the schema description. This extra context is helpful.

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 it gets a single OFW message or draft by ID. It distinguishes between messages and drafts, and the tool name aligns with the purpose. Sibling tools like ofw_list_messages and ofw_save_draft are clearly different.

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 explains when to use this tool (to retrieve a single message or draft by ID). It implicitly differentiates from listing (ofw_list_messages) and creating (ofw_send_message, ofw_save_draft), though not with explicit alternatives. The caching behavior for drafts provides context.

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