sendook_get_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about returned content (subject, body, labels, timestamps) and output format options, going beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, clear and moderately concise. A minor improvement would be to avoid repeating parameter names already defined in the schema.

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 simple read operation with rich annotations and a schema, the description covers key aspects: what is returned, required inputs, and format. It does not address error handling or authorization, but these are partially covered by annotations.

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 description lists the three parameters with meanings that closely mirror the input schema's descriptions. Since the schema already defines these, the description adds minimal new information. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.

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 tool retrieves full details of a specific message, including subject, body, labels, and timestamps. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sendook_list_messages' and 'sendook_get_thread', which have different purposes.

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 implies usage when full details of a single message are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like listing messages or getting threads. There is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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