get_message_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool opens MailMate and returns a URL, which is useful. However, it does not describe any other side effects, error conditions, or what 'open it in MailMate' concretely entails (e.g., app focus or background behavior), so transparency is only partial.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. The second sentence adds useful context about the returned URL's utility without excessive verbosity. There is slight redundancy between 'Get the message:// link' and 'The returned URL...', but overall it is 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema is present, so return values need not be explained in the description. The description covers the core behavior and the purpose of the output. The only notable omission is explicit differentiation from the sibling open_message_in_mailmate, but this is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter, so the schema already explains that message_url is 'The message:// URL to open in MailMate.' The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, such as the relationship between the input URL and the returned link, so the baseline of 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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Get the message:// link for a message and open it in MailMate.' It states a specific verb and resource, and the reference to 'Edit > Copy as Link' helps clarify the action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool open_message_in_mailmate, leaving some ambiguity about the 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 usage context is implied: 'The returned URL can be pasted into any app to jump directly to the message in MailMate' suggests when an agent would want this tool. But there is no explicit guidance about when to use this instead of open_message_in_mailmate, nor any stated exclusions or alternatives.

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