appwrite_get_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers almost none. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only (though implied), what happens if the ID is not found, rate limits, or the structure of the returned details.

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 extremely brief (one line), but the "[UNIFIED]" prefix appears to be metadata noise rather than useful content. The core sentence is efficient, though arguably too terse given the lack of structured metadata.

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?

Given zero annotation coverage, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It should explain what constitutes a valid ID, the "site" context, and basic error scenarios for a complete get-by-id operation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly references the message_id parameter via "by ID" but provides no explanation of the "site" parameter, acceptable formats, or example values for either parameter.

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 the basic action (Get) and resource (message details), but includes the noise token "[UNIFIED]" which adds no value. It fails to clarify what type of message (email, SMS, push) is being retrieved despite Appwrite having distinct send methods for each, leaving the scope ambiguous.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus appwrite_list_messages or other messaging-related tools. No prerequisites or conditions for use are mentioned.

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