Get email SMTP protocol log

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval via 'Get' and mentions the raw protocol nature, giving some insight. But it lacks disclosure about authentication requirements, output format, or potential response size, leaving notable gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, object, and purpose efficiently. Every phrase earns its place, including the diagnostic use case, with no redundancy or 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 simple retrieval tool with a well-documented schema, the description conveys the core purpose and intended use. The absence of an output schema and annotations is partially mitigated by the clear 'raw transcript' wording, though a note on return format would round it out.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (id as email log record ID, date as ISO format). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('raw SMTP/LMTP protocol transcript') tied to an email log record. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_email_logs and list_auth_logs by specifying a unique detail-level 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 phrase 'useful to diagnose delivery problems, rejections and bounces' provides concrete use-case context, implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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