mailkite_get_message

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a meaningful operational detail by requiring a management session token. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not go substantially beyond them by discussing auth specifics, rate limits, or any edge-case behavior. This feels like a fair score given the annotation coverage.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and the resource content, and then follows with the necessary authentication requirement. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter 'get message' tool, the description covers the returned contents (deliveries + attachments) and the authentication prerequisite. It does not overelaborate or leave major gaps, though it could theoretically specify response shape or error behavior, but these are not necessary for this minimal tool context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'id' is already fully documented by the schema. The description does not add any interpretation of the parameter beyond what the schema says, 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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a message' with explicit subtopics 'deliveries + attachments', which is clear and specific. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool for differentiation, but the mention of deliveries and attachments helps distinguish it from similar listing or raw-message tools.

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 tells the agent that a 'management session token' is required and implies use when a message ID is known and full delivery/attachment info is wanted. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_messages or get_mailbox_message_raw, nor does it provide any exclusion guidance.

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