get_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. It explicitly notes that attachment details are included when present, which adds useful expectation-setting beyond the bare operation. The name and wording make clear this is a read-only retrieval, so no destructive side effects are implied.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation and the attachment-detail nuance 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?

For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool, the description is mostly sufficient, and an output schema is available to explain return values. The only notable gap is the undocumented format of the chat parameter, which an agent may need to resolve before calling this tool.

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 the description must compensate for vague parameter semantics. It clarifies that message_id refers to the message id, but it does not explain what 'chat' is or how it should be formatted (id, username, etc.). The chat parameter remains underspecified for reliable invocation.

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 exactly what the tool does: retrieves one message by id and includes attachment details if present. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_history (list messages) and search_messages (search), since it targets a single known message id.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the agent should use this when it already has a specific message id, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer alternatives like get_history or search_messages. No exclusions or 'when not to use' information is provided.

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