aliasmail_get_message

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

While there are no annotations, the description provides highly valuable behavioral context by enumerating the output contents: 'body text, sanitized HTML, headers, and extracted links/codes.' This tells the agent exactly what data structure to expect upon a successful call.

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, impactful sentence. Every word contributes to specifying the tool's function and scope, making it perfectly concise and well-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 that there is no output schema, the description is highly complete by listing all major components of the expected return value (HTML, headers, links). This is critical for an agent to understand the result and plan subsequent actions.

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?

Since the schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score is 3. The description does not provide any semantic value beyond the basic function and parameters listed in the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Retrieve full content') and the resource ('specific email') and specifies the scope as an 'AliasMail temporary inbox.' It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aliasmail_get_messages.

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 heavily implied; one uses it when needing the full content of a known message ID. However, it does not explicitly state a 'when' or 'when not' scenario (e.g., compared to retrieving a list of messages), resulting in a score of 3.

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