Get Message

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying the return payload: 'full TicketMessage object including content, sender/receiver details, attachments, timestamps, and metadata.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.

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, well-structured sentence that starts with the HTTP endpoint and immediately states the purpose and return type. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of any redundant information.

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 retrieval tool with complete schema coverage and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the resource, required IDs, and return structure. It does not elaborate on potential errors or authentication, but these are less critical for a GET endpoint and the annotations already signal safety.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both required parameters (ticket_id and id). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Retrieve a single message by its ID within a specific ticket.' It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('message by ID within a ticket'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_messages or get_ticket by emphasizing the single-message scope.

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 usage context: you need both a ticket_id and a message ID to fetch a specific message. It clearly identifies when to use this tool (to get one message) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature.

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