msg_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses an authorization constraint ('Only the sender and recipients can read a message') and the fact that the tool surfaces real sender identity and origin provenance. It stops short of stating what happens on unauthorized access or the return shape.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose; parenthetical examples add clarity without padding. Every sentence contributes, though the access-restriction line could sit closer to the action.

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?

Purpose, motivation, and access constraints are covered, and no output schema or annotations exist to relieve the description. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description is incomplete on how to actually supply the message identifier and connection credentials.

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 3 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions 'id', 'agent', or 'api_key' or clarifies that 'id' identifies the message to re-read. With the schema contributing nothing, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource (re-read one message) and scopes it clearly ('over your own connection'), with an explicit rationale (verify pasted/relayed text before acting). It implicitly separates itself from msg_recv/msg_send by emphasizing re-reading a single known message, but never names a sibling outright.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use trigger: checking text pasted into the prompt or relayed (a wake-up, a forwarded note) before acting on it. Clear situational context, but it names no alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case.

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