message_getInfo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior: returns null if the message does not exist or is not sent by you. However, it does not mention return structure, permissions, or other operational details. This adds some value but leaves gaps, consistent with a 3.

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 concise two-sentence structure with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds a critical conditional behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a null condition but fails to describe the return structure or any statuses. This is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves the agent guessing about the response shape, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 input schema covers all parameters (100%) with descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how chatId, messageId, or sessionId relate to the delivery status. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('information about message delivery status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like message_getClassInfo and other message getters (e.g., message_getReactions, message_getMentions) by focusing on delivery status.

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 implies usage context: when you need delivery status information for a message. It also hints at a limitation ('not sent by you') but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. This is clear context without exclusions, meriting a 4.

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