analyze_raw_email

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares read-only nature, in-memory processing (no storage), and max 500KB constraint. Could mention error handling for oversized input, but overall sufficient.

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?

Single paragraph but packs all necessary information: purpose, what it parses, output, usage guidance, and constraints. Could be slightly more structured but remains concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers input constraints, analysis scope, output summary (spam score + suggestions), and usage context. No gaps identified.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and description adds meaning by specifying max size (500KB) and format (full headers+body) for the rawEmail parameter, beyond schema's description.

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 performs read-only analysis of pasted raw RFC-5322 MIME email source, lists specific parsed elements (Authentication-Results, SPF/DKIM/DMARC/ARC, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling create_email_test by specifying when to use each.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (debug a specific failing email with pasted raw source) and when to use an alternative (create_email_test when user can resend). Also mentions in-memory processing and no auth, providing clear boundaries.

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