sch_get_mail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: default folder INBOX, body format choices, a 5000-char truncation default, and how the account key resolves via credentials.json. The notable omission is whether reading marks the message as read (an IMAP side effect) or what permissions are needed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence gives the purpose, followed by a compact Args list; no filler and every line carries parameter information the schema does not.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the parameters are fully covered. What remains thin is the safety/side-effect profile for a read over IMAP and any explicit routing away from the attachment and stats siblings.

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 fully, and it does: every one of the five parameters (msg_id, folder, body, max_body_chars, account) is documented with type, accepted values, default, and provenance. The 'body' enum-like options and account example add meaning the bare schema lacks.

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 a specific message by UID') and immediately ties the UID to its origin tools (sch_list_mail / sch_search_mail), which lets an agent distinguish this from the list/search siblings without opening a schema.

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 establishes the required context: msg_id must come from sch_list_mail or sch_search_mail, so the agent knows this tool is a follow-up read after enumeration. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use sch_download_attachments for attachment retrieval).

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