get_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns the full message including attachments and delivery times, which is valuable beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or any potential side effects (like marking as read), though the verb 'Read' strongly implies a non-mutating operation. Given the simplicity, this is adequate.

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 minimal and efficient—two sentences with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by a compact argument specification. No redundant words; every word 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential usage information: what it does, what it returns, and where the input comes from. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0% for message_id, so the description fully compensates. It explains that the parameter is a message ID originating from search_messages or get_chat_messages, adding context about where to obtain it and how it should be used. This is exactly the kind of semantic clarification the description should provide.

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 ('Read'), a concrete resource ('one message'), and adds 'in full, including attachments and delivery times' to specify the depth of retrieval. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chat_messages (which lists messages) and get_attachment (which fetches a specific attachment).

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 argument description states that message_id comes from search_messages or get_chat_messages, implying a workflow of first locating a message then retrieving its full content. This gives the agent a clear source for the ID, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings, so a small gap remains.

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