get_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return content (attachments, delivery times) and that it renders as an inline card, which is useful for response formatting. However, it does not state whether it requires authentication, whether it is read-only (implied by 'Read'), or any rate limits or side effects.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and result content, then a separate practical instruction about rendering, then the argument. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter. The 'Args:' section is slightly redundant given the schema, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, output schema exists), the description provides enough to invoke correctly and sets expectations about the return format. Missing explicit usage boundaries against sibling list/search tools, but overall complete for this scope.

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%, meaning the message_id parameter has no schema-level description; the description alone documents it as 'Message id from search_messages or get_chat_messages'. For a single required parameter with zero coverage, this is the minimum viable but still does not explain format or constraints beyond the example source.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one message) with explicit scope ('in full, including attachments and delivery times'). It is clear this retrieves a single message, distinguishing it from list_chats, get_chat_messages, and search_messages.

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?

Implicitly guides the agent by naming the source of message_id ('from search_messages or get_chat_messages'), establishing the prerequisite discovery step. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it (e.g., versus get_chat_messages for bulk retrieval), leaving a small gap.

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