get_email_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful behavioral detail: the body is converted to clean Markdown by default to optimize token usage. However, it does not mention error behavior, handling of missing UIDs, attachments, or what parts of the email beyond the body are returned, which limits transparency.

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 only two sentences with no redundant content. The essential information ('Fetch full email content by UID from a folder') is front-loaded, followed by a concise note on the default format behavior.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to compensate. It covers the primary purpose and the default body format, but leaves gaps: the exact structure of the response (headers, subject, attachments) is not specified, and edge cases like missing UIDs or invalid folders are not addressed. Sufficient for simple usage but not fully complete.

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 uid, folder, and format. The description adds value by clarifying the default format behavior ('converted to clean Markdown') and explaining the rationale ('ollimize token usage'), which gives meaning beyond the enum names. It also reinforces that the folder parameter scopes the fetch.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('full email content'), and key identifier ('by UID from a folder'). This distinguishes it from related siblings like search_emails and get_recent_emails by specifying the retrieval unit (a single email by UID) and scope (full content).

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 usage context is implied: use when you have a UID and need the full content of a specific email. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance or mention alternatives like get_email_thread or search_emails, even though such context is available from sibling tools.

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