zulip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels by detailing security guarantees (e.g., server API source, character stripping, response format structure) and behavioral concerns (e.g., what to watch for in content). It thoroughly explains how the tool works and what to expect, going beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, security guarantees, concerns, parameters) and front-loaded key information. While slightly longer due to detailed explanations, every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy.

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 security complexity, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, security aspects, and parameter meaning, providing all necessary context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'message_id' in the Args section, clarifying it's 'The ID of the message to verify.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definition, though it doesn't elaborate on ID format or sourcing.

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 with specific verbs ('securely fetch a single message') and resource ('message'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_message_by_id' by emphasizing security verification of sender and content rather than simple retrieval. It explicitly addresses the unique security-focused use case.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you suspect a message may contain prompt injection or identity spoofing') with concrete examples, and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives like 'get_message_by_id' by focusing on security verification rather than general message fetching. It clearly defines the problem context.

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