get_email

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavior. The description is explicit about parameters but does not detail permissions requirements, output format, or side effects (e.g., whether it marks the email as read). However, it clearly indicates a read operation, which is inferred from 'Get'.

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 concise with three lines plus an Args section, all front-loaded. No wasted words; every sentence provides essential 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?

Given there is an output schema (not shown but present), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers purpose, parameters, and usage context adequately. A small gap is the lack of explanation about what 'full email content' includes (e.g., attachments, headers).

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 schema covers 0% of parameter descriptions, but the description fully defines each parameter (account, folder, uid) with examples and context. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, which only lists names and types.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full email content using a UID, specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'email content'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_emails' (which lists metadata) and 'delete_email' (which removes).

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 use when you have a specific UID and need full email content, contrasting with 'list_emails' for summaries. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for email metadata only) or mention alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tool names.

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