get_message

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by indicating a read operation, and adds that the response includes the body. It does not disclose error behavior or edge cases, but the read-only annotation already covers the safety profile for this simple getter.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a clear Args section. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 low complexity (one parameter), an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the essential invocation details. It lacks an explicit comparison to list_messages, but for a simple getter this is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 provides no description for message_id, so the description compensates by explaining it as 'the numeric message ID.' This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the integer type, clearly indicating the parameter identifies which message to retrieve.

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 gets a specific message/post and its body, identifying the verb and resource. The word 'specific' implies a single-record fetch, distinguishing it from list_messages, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 by 'specific message' and the required message_id argument, indicating this is for retrieving one known message. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of list_messages or other alternatives.

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