get_message

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

While no annotations are provided, the description discloses what the response includes (subject, body, linked events, attachment URIs) and explicitly states that document URIs require separate retrieval via sibling tools. This clarifies the tool's scope and prevents user confusion, though it does not mention authorization or error behavior.

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 compact: a one-line purpose, a brief response summary, and a clear parameter note. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant content. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential information: what it does, what the response contains, how to get the ID, and how to handle attachment URIs. It could touch on error behavior or authentication but is otherwise complete for its scope.

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 input schema has only a bare integer type for message_id, but the description adds critical context: it is numeric and comes from list_timeline or list_notifications. This gives the parameter meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't elaborate further on possible formats or edge cases.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full detail for a message/notification by ID, listing specific response elements (subject, body, linked events, attachment URIs). This distinguishes it from sibling listing tools and document access tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the user to use list_timeline or list_notifications to obtain the message_id, and directs to get_document_content or download_document for actual document access using URIs from the response. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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