Mail Get Message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the read-only behavior is covered there. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as return value behavior, attachments, or failure modes; it contributes nothing beyond what the annotations already provide.

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 short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient communication. The sentence merely repeats the tool name and adds a platform wrapper detail that does not help an agent understand the tool.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description provides no functional context. An agent cannot tell that this retrieves a single mail message by ID, what identifier schema is used, or how it compares to mail_get_thread. The wrapper phrase is noise rather than useful context.

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 0%, and the description does not clarify what message_id means, what format it expects, or how it relates to mail threads. The single required parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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 only restates the tool name and notes it is 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP'; it does not state what the tool does with a verb and resource. It offers no differentiation from similar siblings like mail_get_thread or messages_get_message.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives such as mail_search_messages, mail_get_thread, or messages_get_message. An agent would have to infer usage entirely from the name.

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