mail_get_message

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that overly long bodies come with a truncated marker, which is useful. However, it does not describe error behavior, authentication expectations, or whether both text and HTML bodies are always returned, so coverage 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary return content is stated first, followed by truncation behavior and the export alternative. Every sentence adds value.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main return values, truncation behavior, and the relevant alternative for full export. It is slightly thin on how attachment IDs relate to mail_download_attachment, but the core calling context is present.

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%, and the description does not explain account_id, message_id, or max_body_chars. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory and the truncated marker hints at max_body_chars, but the description does not compensate for the complete lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 the specific action: getting email text/HTML body and attachment IDs. It also differentiates from the sibling export tool by noting that full persistence is handled via export, so an agent can distinguish this from mail_export_message and mail_download_attachment.

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 gives a clear usage condition: if the full body needs to be saved to disk, call export instead. It does not explicitly mention when to use mail_download_attachment for attachment bytes, but the main routing decision between retrieval and export is well covered.

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