Lire un mail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns full email content but does not disclose whether reading the email changes any state (e.g., marking as read) or any other side effects. This is a non-negligible gap for a read operation, but the core behavior is clear.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's action and includes all essential information: what it does, what fields it returns, and how to obtain the input. There is no waste or redundant text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the purpose, input source, and returned fields. It lacks error scenarios or output format details, but the complexity is low, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100% with a description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the id is obtained from lister_mails or rechercher_mails, guiding the agent on how to acquire a valid input.

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 uses specific verbs ('Renvoie') and clearly states the resource ('contenu complet d'un mail') and the fields returned (sender, subject, date, status, body). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like lister_mails and rechercher_mails by specifying that it returns full content from an ID obtained via those tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent that the input ID should come from lister_mails or rechercher_mails, providing clear usage context. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use statements, but the sibling tool names (e.g., envoyer_mail, deplacer_mail) imply alternatives for other actions.

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