get_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a message by ID but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation and parameter but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are needed for a retrieval tool in a messaging system.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter ('message_id: The ID of the message to retrieve'), which is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't specify the format or constraints of the ID (e.g., string length, pattern), preventing a perfect score.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('message by ID'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_assistant' or 'get_phone_number' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for message retrieval, or compare it to related tools like 'send_message' or 'list_connections' for messaging workflows, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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