GetMessageClassMessage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the return fields but does not disclose side effects (likely none as it is read-only), error behavior (e.g., if message not found), or any authentication or rate limit details. Minimally 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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action. Every word is meaningful, with no fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description provides a list of returned fields (msgno, msgtext, self-explanatory flag, description), which is helpful. However, it does not clarify whether there are additional fields or the exact data types, leaving minor gaps.

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 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not add meaning beyond the schema's descriptions, which already include examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve a single message') and the resource ('from an ABAP message class (MSAG/T100)'). It specifies what is returned (msgno, msgtext, self-explanatory flag, description), and the name distinguishes it from siblings like 'GetMessageClass'.

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?

While the name and description imply usage for retrieving a specific message, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative tools like 'GetMessageClass' or 'CreateMessageClassMessage'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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