Письмо внутренней почты SmartLMS

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what the read returns — full text, course, sender, recipients and per-attachment name/size/download link — which is exactly the context an agent needs to plan a follow-up download.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return fields and the sibling reference. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the shape of the response including nested attachment fields. For a one-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the description only restates that the value is a message id sourced from lms_list_messages. No additional syntax or edge-case semantics are offered, so the schema does the heavy lifting — a 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 pairs a specific verb ('Полный текст письма ... по id') with a concrete resource and enumerates the returned fields (text, course, sender, recipients, attachments). Referring to lms_list_messages as the source of the id clearly distinguishes it from the list sibling.

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 parenthetical '(см. lms_list_messages)' makes the workflow explicit: this tool is a follow-up detail fetch whose id comes from the list tool. There are no explicit exclusions or when-not conditions, but for a simple detail lookup the context is unambiguous.

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