nworks_mail_read

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses OAuth authentication requirement and specific scope (mail.read). However, lacks details on side effects (does it mark as read?), error handling, or attachment retrieval behavior (metadata vs binary).

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?

Four efficient fragments cover purpose, usage scenario, prerequisite, and auth requirements. Korean text is compact. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a 2-parameter read operation, description adequately covers auth requirements and hints at output content ('본문, 첨부파일 등'). Could improve by describing return structure or error cases given no output schema exists, but sufficient for tool selection.

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 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description reinforces that mailId comes from nworks_mail_list (workflow context) but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond schema descriptions. No additional format constraints or examples provided.

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?

Description uses specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieve/fetch) with clear resource scope ('특정 메일의 상세 내용' - specific mail's detailed content including body and attachments). Effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like nworks_mail_list (which provides IDs) and nworks_mail_send.

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?

Provides concrete usage example ('이 메일 내용 보여줘' requests) and explicitly states prerequisite workflow (mailId retrieved via nworks_mail_list). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the example and sibling reference provide clear context.

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