spamtitan_get_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It communicates the return payload (sender, recipient, subject, reason, spam score, status) and adds an unexpected behavioral detail about rendering as an interactive card in MCP Apps hosts. It stops short of stating read-only nature explicitly or handling for invalid/not-found IDs, but the 'Get' verb and output-focused language make the behavior reasonably clear.

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 compact and well-structured: the action is front-loaded, the return fields are listed in a natural sequence, and the rendering note is appended without redundancy. Every sentence adds distinct information and no filler is present.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It does not mention error cases or how to obtain a message_id, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity of the operation and the strong parameter coverage.

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 100% and the single parameter 'message_id' is already documented as 'The quarantined message ID to fetch'. The tool description reiterates 'by ID' but adds no additional semantic detail such as ID format, source, or validation constraints, so the schema already carries the necessary meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('a single quarantined message by ID') and enumerates the returned fields. This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like spamtitan_get_queue (list) and mutation tools like spamtitan_release_message or spamtitan_delete_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?

The description implies the tool should be used when a specific quarantined message ID is known and its details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as spamtitan_get_queue. There is no exclusion guidance or when-not-to-use condition.

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