assistantmail_get_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that text/html bodies are included only 'when available,' which is a meaningful caveat, but it does not explain failure behavior, response shape, or authentication requirements. Some transparency is present, but significant gaps remain.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action first and adds the key conditional detail about hydrated bodies. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain what a caller should expect in the response beyond possibly hydrated bodies. It also leaves the 'when available' condition undefined and does not clarify whether metadata, headers, or other fields are returned. Given the ambiguity with get_message_reference, more detail is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly maps to mailboxId and messageId through 'mailbox' and 'specific message,' but it provides no detail on apiKey and gives no format or semantics beyond what the schema field names already imply. This is partial compensation at best.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('a specific message for a mailbox'), and the qualifier 'including hydrated text/html bodies when available' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_messages and get_message_reference. This clearly tells an agent what the tool returns and sets it apart from related operations.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a specific message and its hydrated bodies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_message_reference, so the usage context remains implied rather than explicit.

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