Get Email Raw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (raw MIME string plus metadata), which is genuine value, but says nothing about payload size, auth requirements, or whether reading affects email state.

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?

One tightly written sentence with no filler, and the return content is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is short enough that a small amount of additional routing context could have been added without bloat.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return value — it does so in one clause, but only minimally. For a simple single-parameter getter this is close to adequate, yet it leaves the agent without guidance on output size or how the raw MIME differs from the parsed body.

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% and the single 'id' parameter already documents the em_xxx format. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema is doing all the work — baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: returns the full raw MIME message string plus metadata. The word 'raw' implicitly separates it from siblings like get-email-body and get-email-meta, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied — an agent infers you call this when you need the unparsed MIME source rather than a decoded body. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against the closely related get-email-body / get-email-meta siblings.

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