chaprola_email_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 indicates a non-mutating read operation, but does not disclose what is returned (e.g., full content, headers), error behavior (e.g., when message_id not found), or any side effects like marking as read. The verb 'read' implies no modification, but there is no explicit confirmation or additional context.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Read a specific email by message_id'. Every word contributes, with no filler, and it is concise and clear.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description doesn't explain the return format or any edge cases. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the agent must infer that 'read' means get the email content. This is adequate but has clear gaps, so it is not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'message_id' has a description 'Message ID from inbox listing'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 verb 'Read' with a specific resource 'a specific email' and the required parameter 'message_id'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like chaprola_email_inbox, chaprola_email_send, and chaprola_email_delete by focusing on retrieval of a single email by ID.

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 usage when you have a message_id, and the schema clarifies that this ID comes from inbox listing. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough: after listing, use this to read a particular email. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but the parameter source gives useful context.

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