get_message

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

The description says 'read-only', which merely repeats the readOnlyHint=true annotation. It adds no extra behavioral context such as return format, error behavior, or that message_id must belong to the student. Given the annotations already cover safety, this is redundant.

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 extremely short and without repetition, but it omits essential usage context. It earns no penalty for verbosity, but minimalism here comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks any note about when to invoke it, what the response looks like, or why it differs from list_messages. With no output schema, more detail would be needed for full completeness.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for full coverage.

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 states a clear resource ('single message') and operation ('content', read-only), distinguishing it from list_messages or download_message_attachment. It is concise and specific, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_messages or download_message_attachment. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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