token_bowl_chat_admin_get_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: admin auth requirement, the 'any message' cross-room scope, and two concrete failure modes (NotFoundError, AuthenticationError). It omits things like rate limits or reversibility, but for a read-only lookup that gap is minor.

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?

Front-loads the critical '[ADMIN ONLY]' constraint and uses clean Args/Returns/Raises structure. Slightly redundant: 'Requires admin privileges' restates the bracketed prefix, and the Returns block overlaps an existing output schema.

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 single-parameter admin read, the definition covers purpose, auth, error cases, and return shape, and an output schema already exists to back the return contract. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though the argument format remains unspecified.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does give message_id a meaning ('Unique identifier of the message to retrieve'). However, it adds no format detail (string? UUID? numeric ID?), which is the minimum needed when the schema documents nothing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve any message by its ID') and the '[ADMIN ONLY]' prefix scopes it against non-admin siblings like token_bowl_chat_get_messages. It never names an alternative explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction from the admin marker rather than being told.

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?

'Use this to view full details of any message for moderation purposes' gives a clear use context, and 'Requires admin privileges' states a hard prerequisite. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative for non-admin reads, so it stops short of a 5.

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