get_message_via_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permission requirements, what happens when the message is not found or was deleted, or what 'full details' actually encompasses. Only the word 'Get' hints at a read-only operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the identifying keys are stated up front. It is arguably too terse, but that gap is captured under the other dimensions rather than here.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'full details' returns (content, author, timestamp, reactions?) and any access constraints. For a two-parameter lookup tool with zero structured behavioral metadata, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the 'MUST ASK, DO NOT GUESS' constraint. The description merely restates that an ID and a channel name-or-ID are required, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: fetch the full details of one message identified by messageId plus channelIdentifier. That clearly separates it from list_messages_via_name_or_id and search_messages, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_messages or list_messages_via_name_or_id, nor any prerequisite such as membership in the channel. The only implied usage is 'you already know the message ID and channel', which the reader must infer.

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