get_message_definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It discloses the return type ('Message definition with parts and records') but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a read operation, this is minimally adequate.

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: three sentences front-loading the purpose, parameter explanation, and return value. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no extraneous words.

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 tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input, and output. It could elaborate on what 'parts and records' means, but overall it's sufficiently complete for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 0%. The description adds a basic explanation ('message_name: The message name'), but this largely mirrors the schema title 'Message Name'. It provides no additional constraints, format, or examples, so it only marginally adds value.

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 states the action ('Get the structure') and the resource ('an Integration Broker message'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_integration_broker_services and get_record_definition by specifying 'message' and 'structure', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as get_integration_broker_services or get_record_definition. The description simply states what it does without any contextual advice on tool selection.

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