render_email

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

The description explains the conversion behavior for HTML and plain text emails, which adds transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose error handling, permissions, idempotency, or rate limits. With no annotations provided, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds specific handling details. No extraneous words, clearly structured for quick 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?

The description covers the basic functionality but lacks details on return value structure (e.g., whether it includes headers or subject). It also does not help the agent navigate among many sibling read tools. With no output schema, more completeness would be valuable.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional information about parameter semantics, such as valid ID formats or folder naming conventions. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an email body and returns it as clean markdown, distinguishing between HTML and plain text handling. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like read_email, read_email_raw, or read_email_html, which also read emails but with different formats.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_email_raw or read_email_html. It does not mention when to prefer markdown over other formats, nor does it specify prerequisites or limitations.

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