in-app-message-detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/scope of the returned details. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably fetches sensitive message data.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves detailed information'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity of retrieving message details (likely involving permissions or data structures), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential side effects, or error handling, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.

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 description implies the tool requires an 'inAppMessageId' to identify a specific message, which aligns with the single required parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add meaningful details beyond this basic inference—it doesn't explain what an inAppMessageId is, its format, or where to obtain it. The baseline is 3 due to the single parameter being straightforward.

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 verb ('retrieves') and resource ('detailed information for a specific in-app message'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'in-app-message-list', which likely lists multiple messages rather than retrieving details for a specific one.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an inAppMessageId), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'in-app-message-list' for listing messages or other *-detail tools for different resources.

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