Get Message Store Entries

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it returns persisted payloads; it does not disclose pagination, ordering, error handling, permissions, or side effects. The behavior is not misleading, but it is largely missing.

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?

One sentence, direct, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the return value looks like (array, object) and any special behavior. It only states 'entries' (payloads), leaving the response format and possible error conditions unclear.

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 schema has one parameter, messageGuid, with no description. The tool description says 'for a message' which maps messageGuid to a message, but this is largely redundant with the parameter name. No format, example, or additional semantics are provided.

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 specifies the action (get), the resource (persisted message store entries), and the scope (for a message). It also adds context about the 'Persist' step, helping distinguish it from sibling tools like get_data_store_entries.

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?

No explicit when-to-use instructions or alternatives are provided. The description implies it is used when you need persisted message payloads for a specific message, but there is no guidance on when not to use it compared to related tools such as get_data_store_entries.

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