get_console_message

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond that: no return shape, no behavior for an unknown/out-of-range msgid, and no note that the ID must originate from a prior list call. Minimal added context over the annotations.

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, purpose front-loaded, with the cross-reference to the sibling tool in the second sentence. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-param read tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is just barely sufficient. It omits what a message object contains and how failures (invalid ID) behave, which a slightly richer definition could have supplied without bloat.

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%, so both pageId and msgid are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline 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 (gets) and resource (a console message) plus the identifier used (by its ID). It also names the sibling list_console_messages as the way to obtain all messages, so the agent can infer this is the single-message lookup, though the distinction is implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

Points the agent to list_console_messages when it needs all messages, which effectively scopes when this tool applies (when the ID is already known). There is no explicit exclusion or precondition statement (e.g. what happens with an invalid msgid), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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