Read İTÜ Mail Message

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing three non-obvious behaviors: output is truncated/bounded, reading does not flip the unread flag, and no attachment bytes are fetched. The 'untrusted external content' warning is a meaningful safety cue that annotations do not convey.

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 dense sentence with the core action and the two most surprising behavioral facts front-loaded; no filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers safety, side effects, and scope. The remaining gap is the UID provenance and the semantics of max_chars truncation.

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 coverage is 0% — neither 'uid' nor 'max_chars' is documented in the schema. The description hints at the UID key and bounded output, but never says where the UID comes from (mail_list_inbox) or how truncation behaves when max_chars is hit, so it only partially compensates.

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 one INBOX message'), gives the lookup key ('by UID'), and constrains the payload ('bounded text'). The phrasing cleanly separates it from mail_list_inbox (listing) and mail_get_attachment (attachment download).

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?

Implies the selection context by excluding attachment retrieval and mailbox listing, which routes the agent toward the sibling mail_get_attachment when a file is wanted. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g. for non-INBOX folders).

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