imap_get_message_raw

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

The word 'bounded' and the schema's max_bytes parameter indicate that the returned source may be truncated by a byte limit, which adds some behavioral clarity. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose side effects, error behavior when max_bytes is exceeded, or authentication/state assumptions.

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 a short, front-loaded phrase that communicates the core operation without redundant filler. It could add more context without becoming bloated, but it is concise and clear.

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 getter with a well-described schema PB and output schema, the description covers the basic operation. It omits when to use raw source versus imap_get_message or imap_get_attachment, and does not state that output may be truncated, which is relevant for an agent fetching a bounded raw message. Overall, this is serviceable but missing some decision-relevant context.

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 input schema describes all three parameters, including the required message_id and the max_bytes range/default, so parameter meaning is well covered. The tool description adds only the 'bounded' concept, which maps to max_bytes, but the schema carries most of the semantic weight.

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 and resource: 'Get bounded RFC822 source,' which clearly identifies the operation as retrieving raw, size-limited email source. It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like imap_get_message or imap_get_attachment, so its differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 an agent should choose this tool over the similar siblings imap_get_message or imap_get_attachment. The description states what it does but not the intended use cases or prerequisites (e.g., needing the raw RFC822 source rather than a parsed representation).

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