m365_read_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of transparency. It only states the tool reads email content but does not disclose whether it marks emails as read, fetches attachments, or has other side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's 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?

The description is a single sentence but is truncated, making it incomplete. It fails to be concise because it does not fully convey the tool's purpose or requirements.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return format, attachment handling, and limitations. It only vaguely mentions 'full content'. The description is insufficient for a tool that likely returns complex email data.

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 zero parameters, yet the description implies a required message ID. This contradiction between the schema and description is misleading. The description adds no useful parameter information and instead introduces confusion.

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 tool is for getting full content of a Microsoft 365 email, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like m365_list_emails (list only) and m365_reply_email (reply). However, the description is truncated, reducing clarity.

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 mentions using the tool when the full content is needed and implies a prerequisite (message ID from m365_list_emails). But it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, providing only basic guidance.

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