get_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' correctly signals a non-mutating read operation, and the description specifies the return payload (body text, HTML, attachments metadata). It does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or authorization needs, but for a simple retrieve-by-ID tool this is a limited gap.

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 16-word sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the return components. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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?

For a tool with only two required parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what will be returned. It does not cover error cases or explicitly state that messageId comes from get_messages, but the schema addresses the latter. Slightly more context in the description would be beneficial, but it is largely complete.

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 100%, and both address and messageId already have clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the resource being retrieved. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter understanding.

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 message', a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the return components: body text, HTML, attachments metadata. The word 'specific' and 'full content' clearly distinguish it from the sibling get_messages tool without needing to reference it directly.

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 this tool is for retrieving a single message after it has been identified, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over get_messages or wait_for_email. It does not mention that a messageId must first be obtained from get_messages, though the input schema does provide this context. The usage guidance is adequate but relies on inference.

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