aruba_get_sent_notification_by_filename

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

The description adds 'sensitive' and 'Base64 read' context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), informing the agent about data sensitivity and encoding. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices important parameter details. It is front-loaded and efficient for purpose, but could be restructured to include parameter context.

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 existence of an output schema, the description minimally covers the tool's behavior. However, it omits operational context (e.g., what 'sensitive' means for handling) and does not explain the response format beyond 'Base64 read'.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'filename' or 'confirm_read' parameters. The tool purpose is clear, but parameter meanings are left to the schema titles, which are insufficient.

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 specifies the resource ('sent notification'), action ('read'), and encoding ('Base64'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'get_received_notification_by_filename' or 'get_sent_notifications_by_invoice_filename'). The description only hints at sensitivity but lacks decision criteria.

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