get_message

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what is returned and that the body is optional, but it does not state side-effect behavior, authentication needs, or error conditions. 'Get' implies read-only, but this is not made explicit.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then gives the return payload categories, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand.

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 an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete: it specifies the URL scheme, the resource type, and the returned content. A minor gap is not explicitly stating that this is a non-mutating read operation, especially given the absence of annotations.

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 all parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond saying the body is optional, which mirrors the include_body parameter. The schema carries the parameter semantic load.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get full details of an email by its message:// URL, and enumerates the returned data (headers, metadata, tags, optionally body). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_messages_tool or open_message_in_mailmate.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a message:// URL and need full message details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource and purpose make the appropriate context evident.

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