Get Mail Details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states the required permission (delegated Mail.Read) and the exact content read (body, sender, recipients, attachment flag). While it doesn't explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, the verb 'Read' and the permission requirement imply a safe read operation.

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 one clear sentence followed by a permission note and a compact list of Chinese intents. It front-loads the core function and avoids unnecessary words; the localized intent list enhances discoverability without bloating the description.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: action, content included, and permission required. It does not mention error behavior or response structure, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable and nearly complete.

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 only parameter, messageId, is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, though it mentions what content categories are returned, which is separate from parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as 'detailed content for a message' with enumerated elements (body, sender, recipients, attachment flag). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_list_messages (listing) and mail_get_attachment (getting attachments).

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 usage after obtaining a messageId, reinforced by the schema's parameter description 'Message ID from a mail list or search result.' It states the permission requirement ('Requires delegated Mail.Read') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, missing the top score.

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