read_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the body and attachment list, but does not specify whether it marks the message as read (unlikely), requires authentication, or handles errors. It doesn't mention any side effects or limitations, which is a gap for a read operation.

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 concise, one sentence, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured to list the return content clearly. It earns its place but lacks additional detail that would improve utility.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only mentions the ID, leaving folder and account_id unexplained. For a tool that reads a full message, the description should clarify what happens when these are not provided, what the output looks like, and any prerequisites (e.g., message exists). It is incomplete for reliable agent use.

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?

The schema has 3 parameters with 0% coverage, meaning the schema only provides names/types. The description mentions 'dato il suo id' (given its id) which maps to message_id, but doesn't explain the folder or account_id parameters. The description does not clarify how these parameters are used or whether they are optional, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 reads a complete message (body + attachments) given its ID, which is specific and distinguishes it from list_messages (which lists messages without full content) and read_attachment (which reads a specific attachment). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the message ID parameter, but the verb 'Legge' (reads) and resource 'messaggio completo' are clear.

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 when to use it: when you need the full message body and attachment list. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the sibling tools like list_messages and read_attachment suggest its role. No explicit exclusions are provided, so it lacks strong differentiation guidance.

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