inspect_email

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: uses FETCH BODYSTRUCTURE + header subset, returns in milliseconds, lists exact return fields (subject, from, to, date, size, MIME parts with part number, type, size, charset, filename, disposition). No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections and bullet points for return fields. Front-loaded main purpose. Slightly lengthy due to detail, but each sentence adds value. Could be shortened slightly without losing clarity.

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 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what it does, when to use, and detailed return structure. Covers all necessary information for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, but parameters 'folder' and 'email_id' are self-explanatory from tool name. Description implies usage context but does not explicitly describe parameter semantics beyond the obvious. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal parameter meaning.

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 'Inspect an email's headers and MIME structure WITHOUT downloading bodies', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_email' and 'fetch_part' by emphasizing the lightweight nature and the part number usage.

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?

Provides three explicit ideal use cases (previewing large emails, deciding which attachment to download, bulk processing) and indirectly suggests alternatives like 'fetch_part' for downloading attachments. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool.

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