get_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose behavior beyond the schema: the return payload shape (chat_id or team_id+channel_id, parent_message_id, id, sender, createdDateTime, content) and the non-obvious pagination quirk that 'after alone returns the newest messages'. It stops short of stating access prerequisites (e.g. membership) or failure modes, so it is strong but not complete for an annotation-free 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?

Front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence, followed by addressing modes then return shape; every paragraph carries information. The trailing pagination advice for a sibling tool is useful routing but lengthens the block more than strictly necessary for this tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value prose is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the addressing logic is fully covered for a six-parameter, all-optional tool. Missing only edge behavior such as permission requirements and what happens with an unresolvable link or mismatched ids.

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% across six params, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains the link URL shape, the chat_id+message_id combination, the team_id+channel_id combination, and the role of parent_message_id as the thread root for channel replies. It does not document id string formats or note which combinations are invalid, leaving a gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get one chat or channel message') and immediately scopes it to a single message, which cleanly separates it from list_* and search_messages siblings. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the two accepted addressing modes (Teams link vs. ids) and the exact id combinations for each, then names the alternative (list_chat_messages) and the precise before/after conditions under which to use it. When-to-use and how-to-alternate are both spelled out.

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