Show Email Communication

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the endpoint and return type (JSON object) but no further behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or details about the response structure beyond vague 'describing the requested Emails'.

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 four sentences front-loading purpose and usage. It includes API reference and required params. Could be slightly tighter (e.g., removing redundant 'Returns a JSON object' since that's typical for GET endpoints).

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should provide more on the returned JSON structure. It only says 'describing the requested Emails' without field details. The optional pagination parameters (page, per_page) are unexplained for a single-item fetch; context about their purpose (e.g., for embedded paginated sub-resources) is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters (project_id, id) and implies they are URL path parameters via the endpoint, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Optional pagination parameters (page, per_page) are not explained.

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 fetches full details of a specific email communication by its identifier, and specifies the API category (Project Management > Emails) and endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_communication' or 'show_company_level_email_communication', though the purpose is distinct enough.

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 to use this tool to fetch details by identifier, but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or context for choosing this over similar tools like 'show_communication'.

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