get_email_body

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

With no annotations, the description only indicates 'Get' (implying read-only) but lacks explicit disclosure of safety traits, authentication needs, or error behavior. The return format is specified but no further behavioral context is given.

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?

A single, precise sentence that conveys the tool's function without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description adequately specifies the return format ({html, text}) and scope (archived at send/receive time). However, it omits details on error handling, permissions, and potential null returns, which would improve completeness.

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 the parameter descriptions (id, sender) are already provided. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves the exact rendered HTML and text body of an archived message. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'rendered body', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_email (metadata) or reply_email (sending).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_email or list_emails. There is no mention of prerequisites, restrictions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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