get_email_raw

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical behavioral traits: base64 encoding format, inclusion of 'full headers + MIME body', and 'Capped at 1 MB' size limitation. Could improve by stating error behavior when limit exceeded.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: core action (sentence 1), use case guidance (sentence 2), limitation warning (sentence 3). Front-loaded with the most critical information (RFC 2822 source).

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 simple 2-parameter fetch operation without output schema, description adequately covers return format, size constraints, and intended use cases. Missing only explicit read-only safety declaration, though implied by 'Get'.

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% ('Email UID', 'Mailbox name'), so baseline is 3. Description does not add parameter semantics beyond what schema provides, but none are needed given complete schema documentation.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' + precise resource 'raw RFC 2822 source' + format 'base64-encoded' clearly distinguishes from sibling 'get_email' by emphasizing raw headers/MIME body vs parsed 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?

States 'Useful for debugging or export' providing clear contextual guidance on when to use this over standard email retrieval. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative, but the niche use case is clearly signaled.

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