Get MPL Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation and scope, but does not disclose behavior for missing/invalid GUIDs, error responses, or the exact structure of the 'full' entry.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and primary parameter.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It could be more complete by mentioning what 'full entry' includes or behavior when the GUID is not found, but the low complexity mitigates this gap.

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?

Input schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage. The description explicitly links the parameter to a 'specific MessageGuid', which clarifies its purpose as the identifier of the log entry, even though it adds no format or constraint details.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full Message Processing Log entry'), making the operation clear. The scope 'for a specific MessageGuid' distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve sub-details like errors or run steps.

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?

Clear context is provided: this tool is for retrieving the complete log entry when a MessageGuid is already known. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the use of 'full' implies it is the comprehensive option compared to siblings that return specific aspects.

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