message_getClassInfo

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 discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, return format, or any operational traits. The bare phrase 'Get message' provides zero transparency.

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 fragment that is under-specified, not concise. It fails to earn its place as it provides no informative content, resembling a placeholder rather than a useful summary.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'class info' means, what the return value contains, or any practical details. This is inadequate for a tool with this complexity and sibling variety.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3, but no extra credit for clarification.

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 "[Message] Get message" is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It does not clarify what 'class info' means or distinguish this from sibling tools like message_getInfo or chat_getClassInfo.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether to use it for metadata retrieval, debugging, or any specific scenario, nor does it exclude cases handled by other message tools.

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