get_monitor_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the schema: it scans history in windows of 200, is bounded by the configured request timeout (default 30s), and surfaces a timeout when the lookup budget expires. That failure-mode disclosure is valuable, though it does not state read-only status or auth requirements.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the timeout mechanic and then the alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place, though 'Find a message by ID by scanning history' is slightly redundant in phrasing.

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 and no annotations, the description covers purpose, retrieval mechanics, failure mode, and escalation path. The main omission is any indication of the returned payload or read-only nature.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single message_id parameter (UUID) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Find a message by ID') and names the sibling it is not (get_monitor_messages) for large histories. An agent can distinguish this from the offset-paging sibling without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_monitor_messages with flow/session filters for large histories, which implicitly defines when this tool is appropriate (known ID, bounded history). It does not mention other message-fetching siblings like get_monitor_session_messages or get_shared_messages, so coverage is partial.

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