get_email_raw

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

No annotations provided, so description holds full burden. It discloses that bytes are base64-encoded, bit-identical to DKIM original, no parsing/normalization/CRLF cleanup, inbound-only, and outbound returns 404. However, it does not specify the response format (e.g., JSON wrapper) or other error conditions.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence states function, second adds key behavioral detail, third provides usage guidance and alternative. Every sentence 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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral constraints. Missing details about response structure (e.g., JSON wrapping) and error handling beyond outbound 404, but overall adequate for a simple retrieval 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description repeats schema info (e.g., 'must be an inbound message') without adding new meaning. Baseline 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 'Get the raw RFC-822 bytes of an inbound email message, base64-encoded' which clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (raw bytes of inbound email). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_email' by specifying that this is for raw bytes vs. display/threading.

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?

Explicitly states use cases: 'Use this for cryptographic verification (DKIM checks, zk-email proofs)' and when not to use: 'Inbound messages only; outbound returns 404' and 'For display/threading, use get_email instead'.

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