get_monitor_message

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

The description discloses that it retrieves 'complete message data including sender, content, timestamp, and metadata', making it clear it's a read operation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it adequately conveys behavior without side effects.

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: first states purpose, second adds a use case. No redundant words, front-loaded with key information, efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what data it returns, and when to use it. Minor omission: no mention of error behavior if message not found, but that's acceptable.

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 single parameter message_id is described in the schema with 'Message ID (UUID) to retrieve'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific message by ID', using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like get_monitor_messages (list) and update_monitor_message by focusing on a single message retrieval.

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 says it is 'useful for inspecting individual message details and debugging message-related issues', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_monitor_messages for listing.

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