get_message

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. 'Load' implies a read-only retrieval, but the description does not mention authentication, error conditions, or the structure of the returned message. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic 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?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specified, which is not true conciseness. It earns partial credit for being brief and readable, but lacks necessary detail.

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, the description is barely adequate. It lacks any mention of return values (though an output schema exists, it isn't visible to the agent in this context), prerequisites, or what distinguishes it from similar retrieval tools. Complete for a trivial getter only if the name and schema are sufficient, which they are not given the sparse text.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters like message_id and api_token. The description provides no parameter information whatsoever. message_id is inferable from the name, but api_token's purpose and format are entirely undocumented.

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 'Load a single message' clearly identifies a specific verb ('load') and resource ('message'), and the word 'single' distinguishes it from list-style operations like list_conversation_messages. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with get_conversation, so it falls short of a 5.

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 context about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as get_conversation or list_conversation_messages. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative suggestions.

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