meineba_postfach_read

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description states that opening a message 'may mark it as read' — a state mutation that directly conflicts with the read-only claim. Per the rubric, a description that contradicts annotations scores 1; the agent receives two conflicting signals about whether this call changes state.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and return contents are front-loaded, and the side-effect warning follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary action and return shape, which is the minimum viable level. However, with 0% schema coverage the folder parameter and not-found/error behavior remain undocumented, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description carries the burden and does not meet it. It never mentions the 'folder' parameter or its enum (erhalten/gesendet/entwurf/geloescht), nor clarifies message_id format or origin.

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 ('Read one Postfach message') and adds scope detail ('including its history and attachment list'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like meineba_postfach (list) or meineba_postfach_attachment, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to call this versus meineba_postfach or meineba_postfach_attachment, and no prerequisites such as login state. The 'may mark it as read' note is a behavioral disclosure, not a usage condition.

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