Get message

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read operation. It adds value by enumerating exactly what is returned (author, content, timestamps, etc.), providing transparency beyond just the annotation. However, it does not disclose error behavior or permission requirements.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Fetch one message in full') and then lists the included fields. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the return value comprehensively. It does not mention permissions or error handling, but these are not critical for a read-only fetch with annotations. The description is largely complete for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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 description coverage is 67% (channel and guild described, message_id not). The tool description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond the schema. With moderate coverage, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter description, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('Fetch') and resource ('one message'), and enumerates the included fields (author, content, timestamps, attachments, embeds, reactions, reply reference). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_messages (returns multiple messages) and list_pinned_messages (returns only pinned messages).

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state when not to use it, nor does it mention context such as requiring message ID or channel. Given the many sibling tools, some usage direction would improve selection.

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