inspect_email

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true. Description adds that it renders a timeline of events and highlights final state/problems, expanding on what the tool does beyond fetching.

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?

Two sentences front-loaded with the main action and purpose, zero wasted words.

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?

Given 1 parameter, no output schema, and complete annotations, the description adequately covers tool behavior and return value (timeline with final state).

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter id. Description does not add meaning beyond the schema's description ('The sent email ID'), so baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states 'Full lifecycle view of one email: fetches it and renders a readable timeline of its events... highlighting final state and any problem.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_email (raw fetch), explain_bounce (specific problem), and list_emails (list format).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to answer "what happened to this email?"' providing clear context. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but sibling tools are distinct enough.

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