get_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return types but does not mention potential limits, behavior when both parameters are provided, or error handling. It provides basic behavioral context but could be more comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key outcome, and no unnecessary words. Efficiently communicates purpose and key behavioral notes.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and return types adequately but lacks parameter explanations, usage scenarios, and error/authentication context. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (threadId, messageId) or how they work together. The meaning is partly inferred ('thread or single message'), but no explicit guidance on format or usage.

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 it gets the full content of a thread or single message, listing return values (body text, HTML, attachment metadata) and distinguishing from sibling tool get_attachment by noting that downloading requires that tool.

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 clear context: use to retrieve full content, and use get_attachment for downloading. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to other email-related siblings like list_emails or search_emails.

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