emails_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets' details, implying a read-only operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the email doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured by including key parameter hints. It earns its place but is overly terse.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what details are returned, how to use optional parameters, or error conditions. Given the complexity, it should provide more context to guide effective use.

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 adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'emailId' is, what 'properties' array should contain, or what 'associations' enum values mean. The description fails to provide any semantic context beyond the tool name.

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 'Get details of a specific email' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('email'), but it's vague about what 'details' entail. It distinguishes from siblings like emails_list or emails_search by focusing on a single email, but lacks specificity about the scope of details retrieved.

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 emails_list or emails_search. The description implies it's for a specific email, but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., needing an emailId) or exclusions (e.g., not for bulk operations).

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