stalwart_get_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return content (headers, body preview, raw message) but does not mention error behavior, permissions, or side effects. For a read-only get operation, this is adequate but lacks some 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 very concise, consisting of two sentences plus an args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes only essential details, with no fluff.

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, has an output schema, and the description covers the core function and parameter origins. However, it lacks details on error handling and the odd default for account_id, but given the low complexity, the description is mostly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning by defining 'account id' and 'email id' with a useful note that email_id comes from stalwart_search_emails. This goes beyond the schema titles and defaults, though it remains brief.

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 'Get one email in full' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_emails (search vs. get) and get_queue_message (different resource).

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?

It implies when to use this tool by noting that email_id comes from stalwart_search_emails, which gives a workflow hint. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear for a simple fetch operation.

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