qobrix_get_email_message

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 discloses the return shape ({ data: { id, ... } }) and the include options, which is helpful. But it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention error handling, pagination, or rate limits. For a simple GET, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, about 30 words, and front-loaded with the core action. It includes only necessary extras: return format and include options. No fluff or redundancy. The structure is clear and scannable.

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 get-by-ID tool with a well-specified schema, the description is mostly complete. It provides the return format and include options, and the Activity Tracking workflow context adds background. It lacks explicit read-only confirmation and error handling, but given the simplicity and absence of output schema, these are minor gaps.

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 descriptions for both parameters (id and include) with 100% coverage. The description's 'Include: Properties, ...' line essentially repeats the schema's options, adding little new meaning. The return format hint is somewhat useful but not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Get a single email message by UUID'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like qobrix_list_email_messages, which list multiple messages. The phrase 'email detail in the Activity Tracking workflow' adds contextual clarity about its intended use.

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 provides clear context: it's for retrieving one specific email by UUID, which implies use when you have a UUID and need detail, versus a list tool. It mentions the Activity Tracking workflow, giving a concrete scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state 'use this instead of list when you have a UUID'.

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