text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only mentions the return value. It does not address side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, though 'Return' weakly implies a read operation.

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 single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting important parameter details, so it is efficient but not fully structured around key 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?

The description covers the basic purpose but is incomplete for correct invocation: it does not explain the limit, offset, or include_excluded parameters, nor does it describe the output format. Given the low complexity, more detail should have been included.

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 includes four parameters (id, limit, offset, include_excluded), but the description only indirectly references 'id' via 'one message.' The meanings and effects of limit, offset, and include_excluded are entirely unexplained, and schema property descriptions are absent.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'the plain-text body of one message,' with the additional detail of converting HTML. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'show' or 'attachment' by focusing on plain-text body extraction.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It only states what the tool does, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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