get_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, and 'full content' indicates the return value. However, it does not clarify whether reading affects read status (despite a sibling 'set_message_read'), nor does it mention error handling or authentication requirements. The description provides basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clarifies the scope ('specific message') and the nature of the result ('full content'), which is adequate for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 schema describes the single parameter 'message_id' with full coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, just reiterating 'specific message' which corresponds to the parameter. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 tool's purpose: reading a specific message with full content. It uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('specific message'), and effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_messages' by emphasizing singularity ('specific') and completeness ('full content').

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 implies usage context by saying 'specific message' which contrasts with 'get_messages', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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