get_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieves' conveys read-only behavior, but the description does not disclose error handling, auth requirements, or whether the returned message is a full object or a summary. For a simple get-by-ID operation this is adequate but minimal.

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 a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states exactly what the tool does and the two required identifiers, earning every word.

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 low in complexity, has only two required parameters, and those parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description makes the purpose unambiguous. The only minor gaps are the lack of return-value and error-behavior details, which are not critical for a simple retrieval action.

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%, since both channel_id and message_id have descriptions in the schema. The tool description merely restates that these IDs are used and adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves'), specifies the exact resource ('a specific message'), and names the two identifying inputs (channel ID and message ID). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_messages tool and from message mutations like send_message, edit_message, and delete_message.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives. The sibling list_messages is the obvious alternative for getting multiple messages, but the description does not mention this relationship or any prerequisites such as having valid IDs beforehand.

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