team_time_get_agent_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that this tool reads state rather than the answer body and that a no-reply condition does not release another agent's task claim.

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 short and front-loads the state-reading purpose before the inbox alternative and behavioral warning. Each sentence contributes something, though the first sentence is awkwardly phrased and could be clearer.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description gives only a high-level view of the returned state and does not describe the response shape or deadline semantics. It is minimally adequate but leaves important retrieval details unexplained.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and only one required parameter, messageId. The description does not explain what messageId identifies, where to obtain it, or how it relates to the question/message being checked.

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 states a specific read operation on a question's response/deadline state, which gives some idea of the resource. However, it never clearly says it retrieves an agent message's state by messageId, and the wording is cryptic relative to the tool name and siblings.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to the inbox for the answer body, distinguishing this state-check tool from team_time_agent_inbox. The warning about no reply not releasing another agent's task claim adds useful context, though it does not fully enumerate alternatives such as wait_agent_reply.

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