nworks_mail_read

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the OAuth requirement (mail.read scope) and the dependency on nworks_mail_list for the ID, which is useful. Beyond that, it says '본문, 첨부파일 등' but doesn't clarify whether attachments are returned as content or just metadata – a meaningful behavioral gap.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded with the verb and object, and the ID sourcing hint is useful. Slight redundancy with the auth note that could have been more compact, but overall efficient.

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 purpose, ID source, and authentication, but omits a few practical details: whether attachments are included as metadata or content, any size/pagination limits, and the explicit boundary with nworks_mail_download_attachment. For a read-only tool, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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% for both parametersjší. The description adds the cross-reference that mailId comes from nworks_mail_list, which is helpful but not deeply explanatory. It doesn't add format details, so it stays at the baseline for a fully-documented schema.

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 action '조회' (query) on a specific mail resource and lists the contents (body, attachments). It distinguishes from list and attachment-download siblings by focusing on detailed content. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives, so slightly less crisp than a direct contrast.

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?

It gives a usage scenario ('이 메일 내용 보여줘') and says mailId comes from nworks_mail_list, which helps. But it doesn't warn that attachment content itself is handled by nworks_mail_download_attachment – this could mislead an agent into expecting binary data here. That omission weakens the guidance.

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