message_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the credential requirement, which is already evident from the schema. It does not disclose the default response format, what the boolean parameters (eml, raw, nodemailer, attachments) do collectively, or whether the operation is read-only. The word '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 a single sentence that directly states the action and a key requirement. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the response looks like. It does not mention that the return format is controlled by boolean flags like eml, raw, or attachments. It also lacks any indication of error behavior or how this tool relates to sibling message/email tools, leaving the agent under-informed for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all seven parameters, including notes like 'Alias password from the alias_generate_password tool'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action: 'Get a specific message for an alias (IMAP).' This specifies the verb (get), the resource (message), and the scope (alias, IMAP). It distinguishes from siblings like email_get by targeting alias mailboxes, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 when to use it (for retrieving a specific message from an alias via IMAP) and includes a prerequisite ('Requires alias credentials'). However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools might be more appropriate, such as email_get or messages_list.

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