Read Email

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that the message is not marked as read, that attachment content is not downloaded, and that HTML inclusion is heavy—three non-obvious behavioral details that materially affect invocation expectations.

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 three short, focused sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by important behavioral caveats and one parameter-specific warning. No sentence is filler, and the structure makes scanning easy.

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 combination of complete schema descriptions, an output schema, and the behavioral notes makes this substantially complete for invoking the tool. The main remaining gap is the absence of guidance on when to select this tool over siblings, but for the tool's own operational behavior, the description is largely sufficient.

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter well. The description adds useful practical context about include_html being bulkyebbene, but it does not go into deeper semantics for uid, folder, or max_body_chars. A 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 opens with a clear action and resource: 'Lit un message complet' with explicit content list (headers, decoded body, attachments). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_thread, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_thread, search_emails, or save_attachments. The only usage-related advice is 'Passer include_html=true seulement si le rendu HTML est reellement necessaire', which is a parameter-level recommendation, not tool-selection guidance.

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