conversations_get_message

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which convey that this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, error handling, or any side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description's lack of extra detail results in a moderate score.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and target. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 straightforward fetch-by-ID tool with one parameter and annotations indicating a safe read, the description is sufficiently complete. It doesn't cover return format or error cases, but these are not critical for an agent to call the tool correctly in most scenarios. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the simplicity of the operation.

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 describes the parameter id as 'Path parameter id' with 100% coverage, and the description reiterates 'by message id' without adding format, type, or meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately and the description adds nothing significant, a baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('message'), and the identifying criterion ('by message id'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like conversations_get_messages (plural, likely list) and conversations_get_email_by_id, as it targets a single message by its unique ID.

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 implies the appropriate use (fetching a specific message when you have its ID) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like conversations_get_messages or conversations_get_email_by_id. There is no 'use when...' or 'instead of...' guidance, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred over others.

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