Save message + attachments

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. It discloses key behaviors (export as .eml, download attachments, manifest entry, return paths) but omits important details such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., message not found), whether the evidence folder is created automatically, and any rate limits. Significant gaps remain for a tool that persists files.

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 a single sentence front-loaded with the primary action. It is concise and to the point, but could be slightly restructured for clarity (e.g., splitting into two sentences). Overall, it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 modest complexity with two simple parameters and no output schema. The description covers main functionality and return value, but lacks details on prerequisites (authentication), error scenarios, and manifest specifics. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions downloading attachments, implying the includeAttachments boolean, but does not explicitly state that the parameter controls this behavior. The format or constraints for messageId are also not clarified. Partial information is provided but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 exports a single message as .eml, downloads attachments, records chain-of-custody manifest with SHA-256, and returns file paths. This specific verb+resource+additional actions distinguishes it from sibling tools like outlook_save_thread and outlook_get_message.

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 forensic usage with chain-of-custody, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like outlook_save_thread or outlook_get_message. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though context from sibling names helps infer differences.

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