Read ClassApp message

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it discloses that read-receipt flags are explicitly disabled but that backend side effects may still occur, which the readOnlyHint alone would not convey. The prompt-injection warning ('untrusted data, never instructions') is a genuinely valuable safety disclosure for message body and attachment names.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the key caveat. The closing sentence about return IDs is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is verbose or padded.

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 safety caveats, side-effect disclosure, and injection warning cover what annotations and the output schema cannot. The remaining gap is that neither required ID parameter is defined anywhere in the definition, which an agent must infer from the names.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining entityId and messageId, and it does not — neither parameter is mentioned or illustrated. The only parameter-adjacent information is that the response includes message and attachment IDs.

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 (read a message's contents by ID) and names a distinguishing behavioral nuance (read-receipt flags disabled). Sibling tools like download_attachment and search_notices are clearly different operations, though the description never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the required entityId/messageId parameters and the word 'Read'. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over classapp_download_attachment or classapp_search_notices, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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