View Queued Mail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing further — no note on whether the view returns full message content/headers, whether mail is fetched from the live engine, or any rate/expiry behavior — so it contributes no behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 a single endpoint fragment with a '**Purpose:**' label — extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no explanatory content at all.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place return values could be explained, and it says nothing about what a queue view yields. For a tool requiring two parameters and aimed at inspecting individual queued mail, this is completely inadequate to guide correct invocation.

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%: mail_key, account_type (with a 13-value enum), and open_method are all documented in the schema, including the default and range for open_method. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but nothing is left ambiguous.

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 only restates the tool name/title as a raw endpoint string, `GET /v1/queue/view`, which is a tautology rather than an explanation of what the operation does. It does not say that it retrieves the full content/details of a single queued message, nor does it distinguish itself from `fortimail.queue.list` or `fortimail.queue.search`.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., needing an mkey obtained from `fortimail.queue.list`), and no mention of the queue.* siblings such as list, search, delete, reroute, or download. The agent must infer entirely from the name which of the six queue tools applies.

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