Show Communication

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint (true) and destructiveHint (false), making the tool's safety profile clear. The description adds the API endpoint and mentions returning a JSON object, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations offer. No contradictions.

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 consists of three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second rephrases it slightly, and the third adds required parameters and API reference. It is concise and front-loaded, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant.

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 read-only fetch tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the resource, required parameters, API endpoint, and return format (JSON object). No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to detail return fields. It feels complete for its purpose.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description redundantly lists required parameters (project_id, id) but adds no new meaning or context beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool shows detailed information about a single email communication and is used to fetch full details by identifier. The verb 'shows' and the resource 'email communication' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'show_email_communication', which exists in the list.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Emails by its identifier,' which implies when to use it. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as listing tools or other communication-related siblings. Given the extensive sibling list, this is a notable gap.

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