get_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that quoted reply history and signatures are trimmed by default, that full=true retains them, and that the result lists attachments with name/type/size. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though error handling and side effects are not covered.

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, each earning its place: purpose, default behavior, and attachment handling with a pointer to the sibling tool. The core message is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the purpose, input origin, default trimming behavior, and attachment metadata in the result. It could be more explicit about what else the response contains (headers, subject) and about using search_mail first, but it leaves no ambiguity about how to invoke it.

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%: all three parameters already have descriptions. The description adds only minor framing (e.g., 'for readability' and 'to keep everything') but doesn't materially extend the schema semantics for uid, full, or mailbox.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one full message by uid'), and adds the origin context 'from a search result.' This clearly differentiates it from action-oriented siblings like reply, forward, and send_message, and no sibling duplicates this read operation.

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 gives clear context: the message is read by uid obtained from a search result, indicating the agent should first use search_mail. It explicitly names download_attachment as the tool to use when an attachment needs to be saved, providing an alternative for a sub-task. It doesn't explicitly exclude other uses, but the context is strong.

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