messages_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets details' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify what details are returned, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or what happens with invalid message IDs. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation. Every word earns its place by communicating the essential function.

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 read operation with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about return values, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at what 'details' are returned, but it doesn't.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'messageId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, where to find message IDs, or validation rules). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get details') and resource ('of a specific message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'messages_get_all' by specifying 'a specific message' rather than all messages. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other message-related tools like 'messages_create' or 'messages_update' beyond the verb.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'messages_get_all' for retrieving multiple messages or 'messages_update' for modifying messages. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases for retrieving message details.

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