get_message_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a 'complete structure/definition,' implying a read-only operation, but does not detail aspects like error handling, performance, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, such as whether it requires specific permissions or how it handles invalid inputs.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences: a clear purpose statement and a practical example. Every element serves a purpose without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information. This efficiency earns a top score for conciseness.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and provides an example, but lacks details on behavior, parameter semantics, and usage guidelines. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but gaps in transparency and guidelines prevent a higher score, making it just viable.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any semantic details about the 'message_type' parameter beyond what the example implies. It shows usage with a string example but does not explain format, constraints, or valid values. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately, resulting in a baseline score due to the example providing minimal context.

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's purpose: 'Get the complete structure/definition of a message type.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('structure/definition of a message type'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_topic_type' or 'get_service_type', which likely retrieve different types of definitions, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 includes an example ('get_message_details('geometry_msgs/Twist')'), which illustrates usage but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it offers minimal usage guidance.

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