get_mail_detail

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'indexed mail' but does not discuss side effects (likely none), error conditions, authorization needs, or what happens if the mail is not indexed. This lack of transparency leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists output components without extra words. Every part earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (header fields, mailbox, attachment list, indexed body/attachment text). It does not detail output structure, but the listed components are sufficient for an agent to understand the scope of information returned.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that 'external_id' is an RFC message-id and providing its source ('external_id from get_mail_recent'), which aids in correct usage beyond the schema's type definition.

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 verb 'get' and resource 'mail detail', listing specific fields included (header fields, mailbox, attachment list, indexed body/attachment text). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_mail_recent' by specifying the identifier (external-id).

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 implies use when needing full mail details, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_mail_attachments' or 'get_mail_by_rowid'. The reference to 'get_mail_recent' provides some guidance, but no exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.

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