get_email

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses truncation at 64 kB, HTML-to-text conversion, attachments listed but not downloaded, the dedicated Warnings line and what triggers it, and an explicit untrusted-content/prompt-injection posture. It also documents the fresh-per-call hexadecimal marker tag and that only the END marker carrying that tag closes the content, which is essential to interpret the return correctly.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and payload size in the first clause, then layered with the defensive details that justify the length. Every sentence carries operational weight: truncation limit, conversion, attachment handling, warning triggers, injection stance, and marker protocol.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by fully describing the return shape, including the delimiter protocol and Warnings line, and the annotations cover safety. The one real hole is parameter guidance: nothing says how uid/folder are sourced or what folder identifiers look like.

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% and the description never explains either parameter: what a 'uid' is, how it is obtained, or what values 'folder' accepts (INBOX vs a path vs a delimiter). The rich behavioral narrative does not compensate for this parameter gap, so it falls below the baseline.

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 definition opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Read one message', and immediately scopes the payload (envelope metadata plus plain-text body). The singular 'one message' distinguishes it from search_emails (listing/search) and get_thread (whole conversation) without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is only implied by the shape of the output; there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use search_emails/get_thread instead when...'. Critically, it never tells the agent where the required uid and folder come from (e.g. search_emails or list_folders), which is the main prerequisite an agent needs.

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