get_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one valuable non-obvious trait: reading does not flip an unread message to read status. It omits other behavioral facts such as what happens for an invalid or missing id, permission requirements, or error behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. The critical behavioral constraint (no read-status change) is stated inline rather than buried, so nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key side-effect concern but leaves the parameter, failure modes, and its boundary with get_attachment undefined. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to call it confidently.

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 single id parameter has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description says nothing about it. The schema's numeric pattern hints at format, but the description adds no meaning about which identifier is expected or where it comes from.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (full text and attachment metadata of a message), which is clear and unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_attachment, whose scope partially overlaps with 'attachment metadata', nor from list_messages.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_messages or get_attachment. The phrase 'including for unread messages' hints at a use case but never states conditions, exclusions, or the alternative to pick for other needs.

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