batch_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'read' (non-destructive) and 'full parsed content', but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or idempotency. More detail would improve 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 two sentences, focused, and front-loaded. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is efficiently structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return type ('full parsed content'). It covers the key aspects of the tool's functionality. Minor improvements could include a note on idempotency or default folder behavior, but it is largely 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (uids and folder) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 multiple emails by UIDs and returns full parsed content. It distinguishes from siblings like batch_delete and read_email by specifying the action 'read' and the batch nature.

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 this tool (for reading multiple emails by UID) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. It is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but lacks explicit guidance on avoiding single-email reads.

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