get_autoresponder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' indicates a non-mutating operation, but the description does not elaborate on any side effects, authentication quirks, or other behavioral details. It is minimal but not misleading.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the action and fully scoped. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, the complete omission of parameter semantics and lack of explicit usage guidance make it less than fully complete for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 gives no information about the api_token parameter, and the schema description coverage is 0%. Since the description must compensate for the schema's lack of param details, its silence leaves the parameter's purpose entirely unexplained.

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 tool reads the team's autoresponder settings, using the specific verb 'read' and identifying the resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_autoresponder, which performs a write operation.

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 implies usage through the verb 'read' (i.e., use when you need to view settings), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like update_autoresponder. No exclusionary or alternative guidance is provided.

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