get_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't add any behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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 tool. Every word earns its place without being overly terse.

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 good annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and moderate schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't explain what the tool returns (message content, metadata, etc.), leaving a gap in understanding the result. The context signals suggest this is a straightforward tool, but the description could be more complete.

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% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it mentions the 'id' parameter implicitly but provides no additional context about format, validation, or usage. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for gaps.

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') and resource ('a message by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_messages' by focusing on retrieval of a single message rather than listing multiple messages. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools like 'get_conversation' or 'get_folder' beyond the resource type.

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 when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for retrieving a specific known message) versus when to use 'list_messages' (for browsing) or 'get_conversation' (for conversation context). There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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