stage_get_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or what 'current' means (e.g., real-time updates, cached data). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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: 'Get the current stage message.' It's front-loaded with the core action, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple read operation. However, it lacks details on what 'stage message' entails (e.g., format, content) and how it differs from sibling message tools, leaving some contextual gaps that could hinder agent selection.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, as there are none to explain. It appropriately focuses on the action without unnecessary parameter information, earning a high score for this context.

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 'Get the current stage message' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current stage message'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'messages_get' or 'messages_get_all', which appear to handle messages more broadly, leaving the scope ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to messages (e.g., 'messages_get', 'messages_get_all', 'stage_show_message', 'stage_hide_message'), the description lacks context on whether this is for stage-specific messages or general message retrieval, offering no usage instructions.

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