Get Service Messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying it fetches 'active' messages and includes 'device details and timestamps', which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the core action 'Get all active service messages', and includes examples and output fields. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers the essential purpose, includes examples, and mentions key output fields. It omits details like pagination or limits, but these may be covered by the output schema. The annotation 'openWorldHint' suggests dynamic results, which the description supports.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning for the 'target' parameter; it omits any mention of parameters entirely. The schema itself covers the parameter adequately.

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 the tool retrieves all active service messages with examples like 'low battery, unreachable' and specifies it includes 'device details and timestamps'. It distinguishes from sibling 'acknowledge_service_messages' by focusing on retrieval.

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 provides clear context (retrieving active messages) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling 'acknowledge_service_messages'. No exclusion criteria or alternative guidance is given.

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