read-email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For an IMAP read it omits the most consequential trait: whether fetching a message sets the \Seen flag, plus any auth or failure behavior. 'Reads' implies non-destructive intent but that is inference, not disclosure.

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 no filler; the resource and key appear immediately. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but every word earns its place structurally.

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, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of behavioral detail and it delivers one sentence. An agent cannot tell whether reading mutates mailbox state or what the returned message contains.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet it only echoes the field names (UID, mailbox) without adding meaning. It does not explain the mailbox default of INBOX, UID validity, or what an invalid UID yields.

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 ('Reads a single email message') plus the retrieval key (UID) and source (IMAP mailbox). The word 'single' implicitly separates it from list-emails and search-emails, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call this when you already have a UID. There is no guidance on how to obtain a UID (e.g., via search-emails or list-emails), no conditions, and no exclusions.

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