ncloud_sens_get_mail

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description does not contradict this. The description emphasizes that this is a 'what' of the response (GET endpoint, detail with specific fields), which is accurate for a read-only lookup. Since the annotation covers the safety profile, the description adds sufficient value for a read tool without adding it adds the detail fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and endpoint, followed by a compact list of included. No wasted words. Slightly more than necessary, but is a concise, well-structured summary highly useful.

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 the tool has a simple read-only action, 3 parameters, and full schema coverage, the description plus schema is sufficient. The output schema isn't provided but the description summarizes the main fields. No further detail is needed for an agent to call 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the return content and connecting mailId to 'from ncloud_sens_list_mails'. It does not add much more about the params themselves, but the high schema coverage means the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 one SENS mail in detail'), includes the full API endpoint, and enumerates the key returned fields (substituted title/body, attachFiles[], per-recipient status/sendResultCode/received/retryCount). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listers like ncloud_sens_list_mails and ncloud_sens_get_mail_request.

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 this is the detail step after listing mails and the mailId parameter is referenced as coming from ncloud_sens_list_mails, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ncloud_sens_get_mail_request, and no when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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