get_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the email is marked as read), authentication requirements, or error behavior. It only explains parameter formats and truncation behavior, which is parameter-level detail, not overall behavioral transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter documentation is structured and easy to scan, with every sentence serving a purpose. It is not overly verbose, but it is essentially a docstring rather than a narrative.

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 that an output schema exists, return values are covered externally. However, the description lacks usage guidance, side-effect disclosure, and any error context. For a simple retrieval tool with well-documented parameters, this is acceptable but has clear gaps in behavioral and contextual clarity.

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 description coverage, so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: UID, mailbox default ('INBOX'), body_format options with meanings, and max_length truncation behavior (including None and ignoring for 'full'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 says 'Hämta fullständigt innehåll för ett e-post via UID' which clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (email via UID). It implies full content retrieval, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_email_headers or list_emails, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies when to use the tool (when full email content is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The purpose is clear enough, but there is no direct comparison with sibling tools such as get_email_headers.

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