get_message

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the singular granularity but does not describe other behavioral aspects such as error responses, missing-message handling, or return format. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 three words with no filler, front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. It is concise without sacrificing core clarity.

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 strong read-only annotations and a clear required-parameter schema, the description is mostly complete. It could be improved by mentioning that a single message object is returned and by distinguishing usage from read_messages, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the description does not mention channel_id or message_id at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions or clarify how the IDs relate to the operation.

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 'Read one message' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying a single-message retrieval operation. It distinguishes itself from plural/sibling tools like read_messages by emphasizing 'one' message.

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 context is implied: use this tool when you need a single message identified by channel and message IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer read_messages or search_messages instead, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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