email_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what happens when the UID does not exist, whether it errors or returns null, or what credentials/auth are needed for an open-world mailbox read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted or buried.

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?

Four parameters, zero schema documentation, and no output schema; the description covers only one parameter and no error or auth behavior. For a retrieval tool in a mailbox that requires identity/credential context, this leaves significant gaps before an agent could 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it explains only uid. The other three parameters (email, folder, password) are completely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving an agent guessing whether they are credentials, mailbox selectors, or optional overrides.

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 and resource ('get a specific email') and scopes it to a single item by UID, which implicitly separates it from siblings like email_search or email_read_inbox. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use when the UID is unknown.

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?

Usage is only implied: call this when you already have a UID. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, no pointer to email_search or email_read_inbox for discovering UIDs, and no mention of required credentials.

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