get_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Liest') and lists the returned fields, but it does not address potential side effects such as marking the email as read, auth requirements, error behavior, or non-existent emails.

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 entire description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and follows it with a concrete list of returned fields. Every word contributes value, with no repetition or filler.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is important for an agent to understand what it will receive. It does not cover edge cases or error handling, but for a straightforward single-email fetch with two parameters, the provided information is largely sufficient.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds useful context for the uid parameter by pointing to its origin in list_emails/search_emails, but does not add meaningful detail about the folder parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Liest') and resource ('E-Mail anhand ihrer UID'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing it returns the full content including subject, sender, recipient, date, text/HTML bodies, and attachments. This makes its purpose unambiguous and differentiated from list/search 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 implies usage is appropriate when the full content of an email is needed and notes the UID comes from list_emails/search_emails. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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