get_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations cannot: attachment references are included in the result, and there is an explicit authorization boundary ('never grants linked-group history'), which is important scope information for an agent. It does not explain why idempotentHint is false on a read, which is the one inconsistency left unaddressed.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first states the output, the second states the invocation contract and the scope limit. No filler, and the identity/coordinates requirement is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does indicate what comes back (full displayed message + attachment references), and the permission boundary is stated. Gaps remain around the 'source' enum and the chat-vs-chatId choice, leaving an agent to guess on two of six inputs.

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 0% and there are six parameters, so the description must carry the load. It usefully documents the messageRef vs chatId/chat+messageId mutual exclusivity (something the schema cannot express) and postId's scoping meaning, covering four of six parameters. 'source' (enum telegram/local, default telegram) is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the chat vs chatId distinction and messageRef format are left unexplained.

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+resource: retrieve one exact full displayed message plus attachment references. 'One exact' vs. the siblings that collect/list/search distinguishes the cardinality clearly, but no sibling is named explicitly to route the agent away from get_message_context or collect_messages.

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?

Gives a concrete coordinate rule (messageRef OR exactly one of chatId/chat plus messageId) and a conditional scoping rule for comments (postId scopes to that post's own thread). It never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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