get_msg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only 'Get message details' — no mention of read-only semantics (though implied), error behavior for nonexistent IDs, required permissions, or the shape of the response. With zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short (three words), but this reflects under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. There is no substantive content that earns its place; it is essentially a restatement of the tool name without added value.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has no output schema, so the description should at least clarify what details are returned. It does not. While low complexity lowers the bar slightly, the total absence of return-value or behavior information makes it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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% — the single parameter message_id is already documented as 'Message ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies; nothing is missing, but nothing is added either.

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 a specific verb ('get') and a resource ('message details'), which conveys the basic function. However, it is vague regarding which message scope it covers — with siblings like get_group_msg_history, get_friend_msg_history, and get_forward_msg present, the description does not distinguish what kind of message this retrieves, so an agent cannot reliably differentiate it from alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its many message-related siblings (get_group_msg_history, get_friend_msg_history, get_forward_msg, read_group_messages). There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing instructions at all, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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