zulip

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 it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention permissions, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core function. The 'Args:' section is slightly redundant but still efficient.

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 an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral details, it doesn't fully prepare an agent for safe and effective use, especially regarding error cases or permissions.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter ('message_id: The message ID'), which is helpful since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., integer range) or where to find message IDs, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific message by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_messages' (plural) or 'verify_message', which could cause confusion about when to use this versus those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_messages' or 'verify_message'. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected over other message-related tools in the sibling list.

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