discord_get_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what content the fetch includes (attachments, embeds, reactions) and that JSON output matches discord_read_messages item shape, giving useful consistency context.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The core action and its scope are front-loaded, and the returns note follows immediately.

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 read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, this is nearly complete: it names the included content, the two response formats, and cross-references the sibling item shape. It does not mention error behavior for missing/inaccessible messages, a minor gap.

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 67% and response_format already documents its markdown-vs-json tradeoff in the schema. The description reiterates 'by ID' and the return format but adds no syntax or constraints for message_id, which is undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 fits.

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 with explicit scope: 'Fetch one message by ID, including attachments, embeds and reactions.' This implicitly separates it from the list-oriented discord_read_messages and discord_search_messages, but no sibling is named, so it falls short of full explicit differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'by ID' — an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it already has a message ID and wants the full message rather than a list. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to discord_read_messages or discord_search_messages as alternatives.

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