get_email

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the tool as a read operation (get) and lists the returned fields. However, it does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is adequate but adds no extra behavioral context beyond the name and schema.

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 sentence that immediately states the purpose and key outputs. No unnecessary words; every part contributes meaning. Excellent front-loading and conciseness.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the return data (recipients, status, lifecycle events, attachments). It does not detail the structure or format, but for a simple get operation this is sufficient. The presence of sibling tools like get_email_body shows it covers more than they do.

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 both parameters (id, sender) are documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Get one message's full detail', which clearly specifies a read operation with a specific resource (one message). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_emails (list), get_email_body (partial), and list_email_attachments (attachments only) by listing the exact fields returned: recipients, status, lifecycle events, attachments.

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 use when full details of a single message are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like get_email_body or list_email_attachments. The context from sibling tools makes the use case clear, but explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is missing.

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