get_email

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

'Without marking it as read' is a real behavioral guarantee beyond the readOnlyHint annotation — it tells the agent IMAP \Seen flags are untouched, a side effect the annotation alone would not convey. Remaining behavior (error on unknown UID, behavior across folders) is undisclosed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence, no filler, and the non-obvious constraint is placed right after the core action.

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 two-parameter read tool this is close, but with no output schema the description should indicate what is returned (full body vs headers), and the folder scoping parameter goes unmentioned.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It usefully clarifies that 'uid' means an IMAP UID rather than a sequence number, but says nothing about the optional 'folder' parameter or its INBOX default.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Read a message by IMAP UID' tells the agent exactly what is fetched and by what key, which is meaningfully different from the list/search siblings. It never names those siblings, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch one specific message when the UID is known. It never states that search_emails/list_recent_emails should be used first to obtain a UID, nor any exclusion or failure case.

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