gmail_get_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is a read ('Fetch') and that the output includes the plain-text body, which is useful. However, it omits error behavior, what else is returned beyond the body, and whether authentication scopes are needed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the operation and its output scope.

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 one-parameter get operation, the description covers the core action and one key output aspect (plain-text body). However, with no output schema, it should more fully describe the returned object and handle common edge cases (e.g., message not found, auth requirements). It is minimally sufficient but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by id' clarifies that message_id is a Gmail message identifier, distinguishing it from a thread id. Yet it does not explain the expected format of the id or how to obtain it, leaving some ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('a single Gmail message by id'), and a scoping detail ('including its plain-text body'). This distinguishes it from siblings like gmail_search (which returns multiple messages) and gmail_get_thread (which operates on threads, not individual messages).

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 the tool should be used when you have a message_id and need the message's plain-text body, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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