get_message

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

The description discloses what the tool returns (payload, bodyMd, metadata, signature) but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., marking as read), authentication requirements, or error behavior. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only partially addresses it.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every element (resource, ID, detail fields) is information-dense with no 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?

For a simple single-parameter getter, the description is adequately complete: it names the return fields, which acts as a de facto output contract. It lacks details on not-found scenarios or authentication, but given the low complexity and high schema coverage, these are not critical gaps.

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 provides 100% coverage with a clear description for messageId (e.g., msg_abc123). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond reiterating 'by ID', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 retrieves a single message by ID, listing specific return fields (payload, bodyMd, metadata, signature). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_thread or check_inbox, which serve different purposes.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you have a specific message ID and need full details. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like check_inbox or get_thread, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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