outlook_get_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'Content is safely encapsulated,' which hints at safety but is vague. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or what happens if the message ID is invalid. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious 'get' action.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded. It states the purpose and adds a safety note. No wasted words.

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 tool has an output schema (though not shown in detail), which may explain return values. The description is adequate for a simple get-by-ID tool, but it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what 'full details' includes. Given the simplicity, it's minimally complete but could be more informative.

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 schema has only one parameter, message_id, with no description. The tool description says 'by its ID' but doesn't add format details (e.g., is it a GUID, a string format). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it only minimally does. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description doesn't add much beyond the schema.

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's purpose: to get full details and content of a specific email message by its ID. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('email message'), and the mention of 'by its ID' distinguishes it from list/search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like outlook_list_messages or outlook_search_messages, which also deal with messages.

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 usage: you need a message ID to retrieve a specific message. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list or search, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the ID from a list or search). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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