Get message processing log errors

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds no further behavioral detail. It does not disclose return shape, whether multiple errors can be returned, pagination behavior, or how message_guid is scoped. The description is not misleading but misses an opportunity to add context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and object, which is all that conciseness demands for this short description.

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 and only one parameter, the description is too thin. It does not specify what 'error details' includes, how a valid message_guid is obtained, or what error cases exist. An agent may know what the tool does but will lack confidence about the response format and input provenance.

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 schema provides only a message_guid string with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what message_guid is or where to find it. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description should clarify that it refers to the message processing log entry.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('error details for a specific message processing log entry'). The word 'errors' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_message_processing_log_attachments and get_message_processing_log_properties, but it could more explicitly mention the message_guid parameter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that message_guid should come from get_message_processing_logs or that other aspects like attachments, properties, or runs are handled by the corresponding sibling tools.

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