cdp_get_message_def

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description itself lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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 ('Get a specific message definition'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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 the tool's low complexity (simple retrieval), 2 parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, and parameter semantics. It meets a bare minimum but leaves gaps an agent would need to infer.

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%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'by ID' which hints at 'message_def_id', but doesn't explain the 'tenant_id' parameter (its purpose, when it's required, or why it defaults to null). It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural information.

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 specific message definition by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_message_defs' (which lists multiple) and 'cdp_create_message_def' (which creates). However, it doesn't specify what a 'message definition' is in this context, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid message_def_id), contrast with 'cdp_list_message_defs' for browsing, or indicate error conditions (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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