Get AlmaEsami Messages

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, and the description confirms read-only behavior, adding that it does not delete messages. It also lists the specific fields returned (subject, sender, etc.), which adds value beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on openWorldHint or other behavioral traits.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and constraints.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a good summary of returned data. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination or prerequisites beyond the parameters, which could be helpful. Overall adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions), but the description does not explain the missing base_url parameter or any parameter behavior, leaving it at baseline 3.

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 verb ('reads'), the resource ('AlmaEsami messages'), and the scope ('authenticated student's'). It also explicitly mentions that it is read-only and does not delete messages, distinguishing it from potential mutation tools.

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 indicates the tool is for reading messages and is read-only, implying its use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though it is clear enough for a simple retrieval tool.

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