Входящие 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 bar is lower. The description still adds value by enumerating the returned fields (subject, course, sender, date, read status, attachment count), which no output schema provides.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool lists, then the source system, then the return fields. The 'important announcements often arrive here' line is mildly promotional but does double duty as usage guidance.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately for a read-only list tool. Pagination/limit behavior and how to fetch a single message are the only material gaps.

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?

Only one parameter (limit) exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description never mentions the limit or default paging behavior, so it adds nothing beyond the structured field — 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list incoming internal-mail messages), plus the underlying plugin (local_mail) and scope (correspondence with teachers within courses). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling lms_get_message, but never names it explicitly.

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 sentence about important announcements and materials from teachers arriving here hints at when to check this inbox, but usage is only implied — there is no explicit 'use lms_get_message to read one message' routing or any exclusion criteria.

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