get_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the fetch marks the message as read, what permissions are required, what happens for an invalid UID or folder, or anything about the shape/size of the returned content. 'Full content' is the only behavioral hint.

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 zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely well-proportioned.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what 'full content' means (headers, body, attachments, HTML vs text) and cover the folder parameter. Neither is addressed, leaving real gaps for an agent to call this correctly.

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 50%: uid is documented but folder is not, and the description adds no meaning for either parameter. Critically, it never mentions the folder parameter or its INBOX default, which materially affects which message is returned.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full content of one email') plus the lookup key ('by UID'), which clearly separates it from list_emails and search_emails that return collections. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_emails or search_emails, nor any prerequisite guidance such as needing a UID obtained from those tools. The schema comment hints at the source of the UID, but the description itself offers no usage context.

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