read_email_raw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that the tool reads raw MIME and returns the full, unedited message, which implies no side effects or mutations. The description does not mention potential limitations (e.g., size restrictions), but the behavior is well-described.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the action and value. Every sentence adds essential information with no 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description appropriately hints at the return format (raw MIME). It fits well within the ecosystem of sibling tools, providing a clear niche. However, it could mention that the id is typically a unique identifier from the email system.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters (id, folder, account) beyond what the schema provides. The parameters are self-explanatory, and no extra context is given.

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 reads the raw MIME source of an email, returning the full, unedited message with all headers. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'read_email' (processed) and 'read_email_html' (HTML version), and it lists concrete use cases (debugging, forensics, .eml export).

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 explains when to use the tool (debugging, forensics, exporting) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools implies that for a processed view, 'read_email' or 'read_email_html' should be used instead.

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