get_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the accepted input forms (name, decimal ID, or 0x-prefixed hex ID) and the nature of the return ('signal layout'). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only nature, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It could mention what happens when a message isn't found, but that is not essential for this straightforward lookup 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the 'message' parameter by listing accepted formats, but says nothing about 'dbc_path' beyond its self-evident name. This is partial compensation for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return one message and its signal layout') and clearly identifies the resource (a single message from a DBC). It is well differentiated from siblings like list_messages by emphasizing the singular target.

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 conveys clear context: use this to retrieve one message and its signal layout. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, but the 'one message' scoping makes the intended use obvious given the sibling list_messages tool.

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