agent_message_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it explains storage-only-for-shortened-messages, pruning after 7 days, and the distinct pruned-id error behavior. It stops short of stating permissions or read-only assurances, but 'Read' plus the lookup semantics make the operation clear.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then gives necessary contextual details. Each sentence adds useful information about storage, id availability, or pruning; it is slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 read lookup with no output schema, the description provides the critical operational context: id source, when records exist, and pruning behavior. It does not describe the return value shape, but the phrase 'in full' plus the tool name make it sufficiently clear for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description compensates for the undocumented message_id by explaining that it comes from a specific pointer line format. The project_id parameter is already documented in the schema with a clear override rule, so no additional description is needed there.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read one agent-to-lead message in full, by the id'. It clearly differentiates this tool from generic read or list tools by explaining exactly what kind of message it reads and how the id is sourced.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions: only for shortened messages stored by hive, identified by a pointer line. It also states an exclusion: every other send stores nothing and has no id to read, so the agent knows not to attempt this tool in those cases.

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