get_message

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

readOnlyHint=true already conveys the read-only safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about the format default ('plain text by default, or the original HTML') and the specific fields returned, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions or missing high-impact behaviors are apparent.

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?

A single, tightly packed sentence with the action front-loaded and a colon-delimited list of returned components. There is no repetition or filler; every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job of listing the core return components. It is slightly underspecified about whether 'attachments' means metadata or full file content, and does not mention errors or edge cases, but the essential invocation details are covered by the schema and description together.

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 covers 100% of parameters with informative descriptions, including the origin of message_id and workspace_id, the format enum, and the optionality of origin. The main description does not add semantic value for parameters beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Read one message in full', a specific verb and resource, and then enumerates exactly what is included: body, sender, recipients, attachments, and per-recipient delivery status. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_messages or other get_* tools, even without naming them explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied through schema prerequisites: message_id is described as 'The message _id from list_messages', and workspace_id as coming from list_projects or workspace_file. This tells an agent that get_message is used after listing to obtain IDs, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions.

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