sophos_preview_quarantine_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a strong safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns headers and body snippet, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions. The description adds value by specifying output content, but given annotations already cover safety, the incremental transparency is moderate.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Preview' and immediately specifies the resource and what is previewed. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of what is returned (headers, body snippet). However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential size limits or that it's a snippet, not full body. The tool has only 2 simple parameters and no nested objects, so the description is adequate for its complexity.

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 covers both parameters (tenant_id, message_id) with 100% coverage, so they are fully described. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely references the message without detailing the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 previews headers and body snippet of a pre-delivery quarantined message, using specific verb 'Preview' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sophos_get_quarantine_message' (which likely returns full details) and 'sophos_preview_post_delivery_quarantine_message' (which handles post-delivery messages). This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly differentiates the tool.

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 implicitly indicates the tool is for pre-delivery messages but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like the post-delivery preview tool. It provides no when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites. The context from sibling names helps, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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