get_raw_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions returning raw source but does not disclose side effects (e.g., read status changes), performance characteristics, or limits despite a max_chars parameter existing. Serious behavioral gaps remain undocumented.

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 brief and front-loaded: the first sentence describes the core behavior immediately, and the second adds a diagnostic use case. No filler words; though under-specification is an issue, the structure itself is efficient.

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 complexity (3 params, no annotations) and an output schema, the description lacks essential missives: it does not cover when to use it, what max_chars controls, side effects, or safety profile. The output schema exists but distinguishes output type; critical usage context is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and 3 parameters, the description added no parameter meaning. It does not explain folder/uid semantics or the max_chars truncation limit, forcing agents to guess.

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 a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('fonte RFC822 completa da mensagem'), specifying it includes raw headers and MIME. It distinguishes from a regular read by emphasizing the raw format, though it does not explicitly name read_email as an alternative.

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 phrase 'Útil para diagnóstico' implies a use case but is vague; it does not state when not to use it or contrast with siblings like read_email or search_emails. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative mention.

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