get_console_message

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and supplies almost none of it. It does not say whether the message may have been evicted from the buffer, what happens on an unknown ID, or what fields a console message contains.

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 zero padding. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing usage and behavior context noted elsewhere.

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 2-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain how to obtain msgid and what a returned message represents. Neither is present, and the relationship to list_console_messages is left implicit.

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 50%: pageId is documented in the schema, while msgid is bare. The description's 'by its ID' is the only hint that msgid is the message identifier, but it adds no format, range, or sourcing guidance beyond the parameter name itself.

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 (Gets) and resource (console message) with the lookup key (by its ID), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_console_messages, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 phrase 'by its ID' weakly implies the ID must come from somewhere, but the description never says to call list_console_messages first nor when to prefer this over that sibling. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are given.

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