assistantmail_get_message

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior beyond the schema by mentioning 'hydrated text/html bodies when available,' which signals that body content may or may not be present. However, it does not disclose authentication expectations, response structure, or what happens when hydrated bodies are unavailable.

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 that states the action, the target, and a key output feature. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple get-by-id tool the description is minimally adequate, especially with the required IDs visible in the schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent would benefit from knowing what the response looks like, how 'hydrated' bodies are represented, and how this tool relates to list_messages or get_message_reference.

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, but it only loosely maps to parameters via 'mailbox' and 'specific message.' It does not explain that mailboxId identifies the mailbox and messageId identifies the message, nor does it clarify the role or format of apiKey beyond the schema pattern. The description adds little semantic value over the parameter names themselves.

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 and resource: 'Gets a specific message for a mailbox.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_messages, which retrieve collections, and get_message_reference, which presumably returns a lighter-weight reference. The added detail about 'hydrated text/html bodies when available' further clarifies the tool's unique value.

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 phrase 'a specific message' implies this is for fetching one already-identified message, as opposed to listing messages. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_messages or get_message_reference, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a mailboxId and messageId obtained from a prior listing call.

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