get_text_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does (gets details) but discloses no behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a retrieval tool.

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 concise, with a clear one-line purpose followed by an Args section that efficiently documents the key parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, the tool has two parameters, and account_id is not explained. For a simple retrieval tool, this gap in completeness is notable, though the core purpose is clear.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents conversation_id with format and source ('Short alphanumeric conversation id...Returned by list_text_messages'), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, account_id (second parameter) is not mentioned, leaving it undocumented.

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 'Get full detail for one SMS conversation, including all messages,' which clearly specifies the verb (get), resource (SMS conversation), and scope (full detail with all messages). This differentiates the tool from siblings like list_text_messages (which likely lists conversations without full detail) and get_call (different resource).

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 mentions that conversation_id is 'Returned by list_text_messages as id on each conversation', implying the tool is used after listing conversations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or prerequisites.

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