get-channel-message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the resource being retrieved, but it also does not contradict the annotations.

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, straightforward sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID operation.

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 get operation with three required string parameters and rich annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It does not describe the returned message payload since there is no output schema, but the tool name and siblings make the expected result reasonably clear.

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 has 100% description coverage for parameters, but each description is the tautological 'Value for teamId/channelId/messageId', providing no real semantics. The tool description adds minimal meaning by implying these identify a channel message, but it does not clarify relationships or message ID format.

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 'Get a single channel message' states a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying that this tool retrieves one channel message. It is distinguishable from siblings like list-channel-messages or get-chat-message by the 'channel message' resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 such as list-channel-messages, get-chat-message, or list-channel-message-replies. The word 'single' weakly implies retrieving one item rather than listing, but no usage context or alternative routing is given.

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