read_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the max_chars behavior (default 5000, -1 for full) which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though the verb implies it), nor does it mention side effects, error behavior, or output format. Given the read-only nature, the risk is low, but more context would help.

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, efficient Korean sentence. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key parameter behavior. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every word adds value.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate heavily. It does not explain the required parameters (uid, account_label) or the mailbox default, nor does it describe the return value (email body) or any error cases. An agent would need to infer a lot from parameter names, making this insufficient for a complete call.

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 only 25% (only max_chars has a description). The description adds meaning for max_chars by explaining the default and the -1 sentinel, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not explain uid, mailbox, or account_label, which are left to be inferred from their names. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate more but only partially does.

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 a specific action: reading the full body of a specific email. It uses the verb '읽습니다' (reads) with the resource '특정 메일의 전체 본문' (the full body of a specific email). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all about listing accounts, checking new mails, resetting, categorizing, or watching mailboxes – none overlap with reading an email body.

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 implies usage when one needs to read an email's body, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide context like prerequisites (e.g., having a uid from list_mailboxes). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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