aruba_get_received_notification_by_filename

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds that the notification is 'sensitive' and the output is Base64, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or any constraints on the filename parameter.

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 very short with no wasted words, but it is too brief to be fully effective. It front-loads the HTTP method and path but lacks detail. Conciseness is positive, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it still lacks parameter semantics and usage context. With many sibling tools, the description should better differentiate and guide selection. It answers the basic purpose but leaves significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'filename' implicitly via the URL path and omits any explanation of the 'confirm_read' parameter. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema definition, leaving both parameters underdocumented.

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 HTTP method, path, and action ('read'). It indicates the resource is a sensitive notification and the output is Base64, which distinguishes it from invoice or sent notification tools. However, it could be more explicit about what the tool does (e.g., retrieve a received notification by filename).

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 like 'aruba_get_received_notifications_by_invoice_filename' or 'aruba_get_sent_notification_by_filename'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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