pond_get_message

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the output includes full part bodies and that context_before/context_after control neighbor inclusion (default 3, like grep -B/-A). No contradiction is present.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place. It packs core semantics, usage guidance, and a sibling pointer without waste.

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 tool with only 3 parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers what the tool does, how to identify the target message, the behavior of optional parameters, and a pointer to the alternative for broader context. It also points to a resource schema for response format details, making it complete.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description enriches parameter meaning by explaining id can come from pond_search or transcript, and by giving the grep analogy for context_before/context_after defaults. This adds value beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 ('Expand') with a clear resource ('one message') and details what expansion includes (full part bodies: tool_call/tool_result/reasoning/file) plus conversational neighbors. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly pointing to pond_get_session for whole-session retrieval.

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 clearly instructs how to obtain the message_id (from pond_search or a transcript line) and names an alternative tool for whole-session needs ('For the whole session use pond_get_session'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough.

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