get_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the response fields (next_cursor, has_more, status) and noting that the accumulated answer appears only on terminal tasks, plus a data-scope disclosure that private reasoning is not collected. It still omits rate limits, cursor expiry, and whether has_more=false means the task finished.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the operation, the return shape, and the data-scope caveat are front-loaded with no filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only documentation for a four-parameter tool, and it leaves limit and include_partial entirely undefined. Listing return fields is helpful, but the pagination contract (how to advance the cursor, what happens when has_more is false) is missing for a tool whose whole purpose is cursor-based iteration.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the burden and mostly does not: only after_cursor is hinted at, while task_id, limit, and especially include_partial (which governs partial events) go unexplained. An agent cannot infer from the description what include_partial=false changes.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Read") with a specific resource ("incremental task events after a cursor") and even enumerates the returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling wait_for_message or get_status.

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?

Usage is only implied by "after a cursor," which suggests a polling loop, but the description never states when to poll with this tool versus blocking on wait_for_message or checking get_status. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named despite two very similar siblings.

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