gmail_get

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context by saying 'full content', which implies a comprehensive return, but it does not explain the behavior of different formats (e.g., raw returns base64-encoded data) or return structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and effective, containing only the essential verb, resource, and 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 simple read tool with only two parameters and a read-only annotation, the description is mostly sufficient. However, since there is no output schema, the phrase 'full content' leaves some ambiguity about what exactly is returned (e.g., headers, body, attachments), and the format parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema. Overall, it adequately covers the tool's core function.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for both messageId and format (including default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full content of a specific email message'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like gmail_search (search) and gmail_modify (modify). It also implies the need for a message ID, which is the primary parameter.

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 you have a specific message ID and want its full content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_search or gmail_downloadAttachment. There are no exclusions or prerequisite guidance beyond the schema's required messageId.

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