show-sandbox-email-message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('show') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details and content' includes (e.g., headers, body, attachments). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that retrieves data.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('show sandbox email message details and content') and specifies the source ('from the sandbox test inbox'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a data retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what 'details and content' encompasses (e.g., metadata, body format), potential errors, or how to obtain message IDs (e.g., from 'get-sandbox-messages'). For a tool with one parameter but unknown output complexity, this lacks sufficient 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%, with the single parameter 'message_id' documented as 'ID of the sandbox email message to retrieve'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples or ID sourcing. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 verb 'show' and the resource 'sandbox email message details and content', specifying it's from the 'sandbox test inbox'. This distinguishes it from non-sandbox email tools like 'send-email', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get-sandbox-messages' (which likely lists messages rather than showing details of one).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-sandbox-messages' (which might list messages) or 'send-sandbox-email' (which sends messages). It mentions the 'sandbox test inbox' context but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases with siblings.

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