Responder mensagem

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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false) by disclosing two side effects: the conversation is marked as handled, and replying twice to the same message is refused. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the key mutation semantics are covered.

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 compact sentences with the core action, the parameter sourcing, and the side-effect constraints front-loaded; every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a mutation tool with rich annotations and a fully described 10-parameter schema but no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral traits and parameter sourcing. Return format is omitted, which is acceptable given no output schema is declared.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds value by explaining the provenance of messageId (the value returned by inbox/read_messages), which the schema itself does not state.

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 (reply) and resource (a specific message), and clarifies the reply is sent with a reference to the original message, which distinguishes it from the sibling send_message. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to source messageId (from inbox/read_messages) and states the duplicate-reply constraint. It does not name send_message as the alternative for non-reply posts or give an explicit when-not condition, keeping it below 5.

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