nexus_read_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a real side effect beyond the name — that reading marks the message read — which is valuable and non-obvious. However, it omits permissions/auth needs, behavior when the id is invalid or already read, and any return shape, leaving significant gaps for a mutation-with-read tool.

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?

One short sentence with the side effect in parentheses, front-loaded and free of filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and its main side effect, which is the minimum viable. It still leaves the id's meaning and the retrieved content unspecified, so it is adequate but with clear 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% and the sole parameter 'id' is typed only as integer with no documentation. The description never says the id identifies the message or where to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Read one private message.' A meaningfully named sibling, nexus_inbox, implies listing, so an agent can likely distinguish one-message fetch from inbox listing. It does not explicitly name any sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The agent is not told to use this after obtaining an id from nexus_inbox, nor when not to use it. Only implied usage from the name and the single id parameter.

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