read-email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Reads the full content', but does not mention whether reading marks the email as read, requires authentication, or has any side effects. Given the existence of mark-as-read, this omission is significant.

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 sentence and front-loaded, which is concise. However, it lacks important details, so it is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the output includes (e.g., headers, body, attachments), how to handle errors, or that the UID is obtained from list-emails. The description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are basic ('The UID of the email to read', 'Email folder (default: inbox)'). The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Reads', the resource 'the full content of an email', and the method 'by UID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-emails (which returns summaries) and search-emails (which searches by criteria).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list-emails or search-emails. It implicitly suggests it's for retrieving full content when the UID is known, but this is not directly stated.

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