Get MPL Error Information

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says what the tool does, not how it behaves (e.g., error handling, return format, permissions, or what happens if the message GUID doesn't exist). This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. However, while it is efficient, it may be under-specified, but that is more a completeness issue than conciseness. The structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what the error text looks like and how to use the parameter. It does not explain the parameter, potential return values, or edge cases. The description is incomplete for an AI agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 schema has one parameter (messageGuid) with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain the parameter at all. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to provide any meaning for messageGuid beyond its type.

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 tool retrieves detailed error/exception text for a failed message. It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('error/exception text'), making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the phrase 'detailed error/exception text' distinguishes it from related tools like get_mpl_details or get_failure_summary.

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 implies usage for failed messages but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_failure_summary or get_mpl_details. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or alternative recommendations, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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