get_editor_markup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description reinforces with 'Fetches data. Makes no changes.' The description adds a visual indicator ('🟢 READ-ONLY') and the HTTP method, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as error handling, rate limits, or authorization requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides adequate but not extensive 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the read-only indicator and HTTP method. It is mostly efficient, though there is slight redundancy (title repeated in description). Every sentence serves a purpose, but the explanation of the resource could be more concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the return value looks like or what 'editor markup' represents. For a data-fetching tool, this is a critical omission. Given the large number of sibling tools, a user would benefit from knowing the structure or usage context, which is entirely missing.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with the 'messageId' parameter described as 'required'. The description does not mention the parameter at all, adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 it 'Gets Editor Markup' and 'Fetches data', clearly indicating a read operation on a resource. The verb 'get' and resource 'editor markup' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'retrieve_a_message'. However, the term 'editor markup' is not explained, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly is retrieved.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states that it fetches data without any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where other tools like 'retrieve_a_message' might be more appropriate. Given the large list of sibling tools, this lack of guidance is a significant gap.

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