get_soap_message

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool returns full configuration including functions/operations, which provides behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without any superfluous words. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the sole source for understanding the return value. It states 'full configuration including its functions/operations', which is informative but could be more precise (e.g., listing specific properties). Still adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter sys_id_or_name, with a clear description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning, format guidance, or examples beyond the schema, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'full configuration of a SOAP Message including its functions/operations'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_soap_messages (which lists summaries) and get_rest_message (different protocol).

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 clear context: use when you need the complete configuration of a SOAP message. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., list_soap_messages for just names). This is a minor gap.

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