get_message

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

The description adds minor behavioral context by stating what is returned (bodies and attachment stubs), which supplements the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not explain important behavior such as whether a message can be missing attachments, how stubs are represented, or any rate-limit/auth considerations.

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 very short and mostly front-loaded with the core noun phrase, but the leading '(unconfigured)' is placeholder noise and the structure is a fragment rather than a clear directive. It is concise but not well-formed.

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-parameter read-only tool, the description provides a minimal sense of the return shape, but it does not cover parameter semantics, output structure beyond 'bodies and attachment stubs', or when to prefer this over sibling retrieval tools. It is a minimally viable definition with clear gaps.

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% and the description provides no explanation of what 'account' or 'message_id' mean, what formats they expect, or how they identify the message. The agent must rely entirely on parameter names, which is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 identifies the resource: one message, and distinguishes it from related tools like get_thread and get_attachment by mentioning bodies and attachment stubs. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetches' or 'retrieves' and does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools.

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 versus alternatives such as get_thread, search, or get_attachment. The phrase '(unconfigured)' gives no contextual usage information, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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