reply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two side effects: the message is marked as processed and the reply is delivered to the original sender's inbox. It omits auth requirements, reversibility, rate limits, and error behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its effect, then a compact Args block. Every sentence adds information with no padding, though the prose could be slightly tighter.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and all three required parameters are documented. Missing only cross-tool routing (when this beats send_message) and error/permission behavior, which leaves a small gap.

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 compensate, and it does: message_id is tied to check_inbox output, status is illustrated with concrete examples ('erledigt', 'issue_angelegt', 'abgelehnt'), and text is described as free text with content examples. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 concrete verb (Beantwortet/replies to) and resource (eine erhaltene Nachricht/a received message), and clarifies the effect of marking it as processed. This implicitly distinguishes it from send_message (new message) and check_inbox (reading), though it never names those siblings 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?

'Die id der Nachricht aus check_inbox' hints at the prerequisite workflow (you must have run check_inbox first), which is implied usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use reply versus send_message or check_replies, and no exclusion criteria.

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