Get Scheduled Message

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

The description loosely mentions 'undo hold' alongside 'inspect', which could imply a mutation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This creates a minor ambiguity. Beyond that, the description adds the note about included fields (recipients, body, attachment metadata), which provides context the annotations alone do not cover.

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 quickly conveys the main purpose. It front-loads the verb 'Inspect'. However, the phrase 'or undo hold' is somewhat ambiguous and could be clearer, reducing conciseness slightly.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema (not shown but present), and readOnly annotation, the description adequately lists the returned components (recipients, body, attachment metadata). It does not need to detail return format due to output schema, making it sufficiently complete.

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 already fully documents the 'id' parameter with pattern and description. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what is in the schema, so 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 inspects a single future scheduled message, including specific details (recipients, body, attachment metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scheduled_messages (list vs single), cancel_scheduled_message (mutate vs read), and update_scheduled_message (modify vs inspect).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'undo hold' but does not clarify if that is a separate action or how it relates to other tools like cancel_scheduled_message or update_scheduled_message. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use hints are given.

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