get_email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by explaining the IMAP BODY.PEEK mechanism and explicitly stating that reading does NOT mark emails as seen unless markRead is set. This fully discloses side effects and goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and key non-destructive trait, followed by three targeted sentences on parameter usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With a 6-parameter schema and no output schema, the description explains behavioral aspects and usage choices well. It could be more explicit about the exact return structure (e.g., headers vs. body), but the phrase 'full content' plus the maxLength hint provides a sufficient mental model for most use cases.

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%, so all parameters are already described. The description adds valuable usage context—such as using maxLength for large emails and explaining that markRead is only for explicit read-marking—thereby enriching parameter semantics beyond the schema's basic 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 opens with 'Get the full content of a specific email by ID', clearly stating a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also emphasizes the non-destructive nature, which helps differentiate it from other email operations like mark_email or get_emails.

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 gives clear, actionable guidance on when to use format, maxLength, and markRead parameters: 'Use format="text"...', 'Use maxLength to cap the body size...', 'Set markRead=true only when...'. It does not explicitly list alternative sibling tools, but the parameter usage context is strong.

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