ic_get_message

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint: true annotation, the description candidly warns that fetching may mark the message as read on some district configurations and that the side effect could not be confirmed. This is valuable behavioral context that the annotation alone would not provide.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, the input source and accepted URL forms are next, and the side-effect caveat is last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-message fetch with no output schema, the description provides the parsed return shape, the source of messageUrl, accepted URL forms, and an important side-effect warning. The only notable gap is the unexplained district parameter, which is a minor omission given it is a common campus-wide parameter.

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 schema already describes messageUrl and view thoroughly, and the description largely repeats the messageUrl guidance without adding new meaning. The required district parameter has no description in either the schema or the description, and at 67% schema coverage the description should have compensated for that gap but does not.

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 opens with 'Fetch the HTML body of an inbox message and return it parsed into { subject, date, body, url }' — a specific verb, resource, and return shape. It clearly distinguishes itself from ic_list_messages by focusing on a single message body rather than listing 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?

The description clearly states the prerequisite workflow: messageUrl comes from the `url` field in ic_list_messages' inbox section, and it documents accepted URL forms. It does not explicitly list when-not alternatives, but no confusing sibling exists and the list-then-get sequence is strongly implied.

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