get_email

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

The description provides useful behavioral detail by stating that text is preferred and listing the return fields, but it does not disclose that mark_seen can change message state or how include_html affects the body. With no annotations available, the description carries the burden, and it covers the main read behavior while leaving the side-effect potential implicit.

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 with a colon-separated payload list. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary expansion.

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 output schema helps cover return-value information, and the core purpose is clear. Still, the definition is thin for a tool with five parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and many closely related siblings, leaving side effects and routing decisions incompletely specified.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate for the five parameters. It implies that uid identifies the email and that body text is preferred, but it does not explain account, mailbox, mark_seen, or include_html beyond what their names and defaults already suggest.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Read one email in full' — and enumerates the exact content returned: body, headers, threading ids, and attachment metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_emails and search_emails, which operate over many messages, and from download_attachment, which returns attachment bytes rather than metadata.

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 intended use is implied: when the agent needs the full content of a single email rather than a list or search result. However, the description never explicitly states when not to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling such as get_thread or download_attachment, so the guidance is present only by inference.

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