Gmail MCP

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific Gmail resources (e.g., messages, drafts, labels, filters), with clear action differentiation. However, some overlap exists between batch_modify_messages and modify_message, and between trash/untrash operations for messages and threads, which could cause minor confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as create_draft, delete_label, get_message, update_vacation, and list_threads. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and select tools based on their naming conventions.
Tool Count2/5
With 64 tools, the count is excessive for a typical MCP server, making it heavy and potentially overwhelming for agents. While Gmail is a complex domain, this many tools suggests over-fragmentation of operations that could have been consolidated into fewer, more versatile tools.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of Gmail's domain, including CRUD operations for messages, threads, drafts, labels, filters, delegates, and settings like auto-forwarding and vacation responders. No obvious gaps are present, supporting a wide range of email management workflows.
Average 2.8/5 across 64 of 64 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate that this is a write/mutation operation, doesn't mention permissions required, doesn't describe what happens after creation, and provides no information about error conditions or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to communicate essential information that would help an AI agent understand and use the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 complex nested parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a filter is, what it does, or what the expected outcome of creation is, leaving critical gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates a filter' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what type of filter is being created or for what purpose. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_label' or 'create_forwarding_address' that also create things in the Gmail context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like 'list_filters' or 'delete_filter' in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Gets a filter' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the filter doesn't exist (e.g., error handling), rate limits, or the format of the returned data. The description lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with only two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical information and fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness, which this does not achieve.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, this is completely inadequate for a tool that presumably retrieves a specific resource. The description doesn't explain what a 'filter' is in this context, what data is returned, or any behavioral expectations. Sibling tools suggest this is part of an email/Gmail system, but the description provides no such contextual clues.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented in the schema as 'The ID of the filter to be fetched'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets a filter' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of filter is being retrieved (e.g., email filter, data filter) or what resource it operates on, though sibling tools suggest this is likely related to email/Gmail filters. The description fails to distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'list_filters' or 'create_filter'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a filter ID), comparison to sibling tools like 'list_filters' for browsing all filters, or context about when fetching a specific filter is appropriate versus creating or listing filters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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. 'Deletes a filter' indicates a destructive mutation, but it does not specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., impacting associated messages). It lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or response format, leaving critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Deletes a filter'), which is efficient but under-specified. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the brevity sacrifices necessary context for a mutation tool. While not verbose, it lacks the detail needed for effective use, making it more sparse than optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or error cases, nor does it explain return values or side effects. For a mutation tool with no structured support, this minimal description is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('The ID of the filter to be deleted'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond this, but with 0 parameters needing compensation and high schema coverage, the baseline is 4. No value is added, but no gap exists.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes a filter' restates the tool name 'delete_filter' almost verbatim, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'deletes' and resource 'filter', but fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_draft' or 'delete_label' beyond the resource name. No additional context about what a filter is or its scope is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing filter ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_filter' or 'list_filters' from the sibling list. Usage is implied only by the name, with no explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a thread' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated messages, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words ('Delete a thread'), which is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. There is zero wasted language or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'delete' means operationally, what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. For a tool that permanently removes data, this lack of context is problematic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides—it doesn't explain ID format, sourcing, or validation rules. The schema adequately handles parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a thread' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without providing any additional context. It specifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a thread'), but fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_message', 'trash_thread', or 'untrash_thread' that also manipulate threads or messages. No specific scope or differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing thread ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete already deleted threads), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'trash_thread' (which might move to trash vs permanent deletion) or 'delete_message' (which operates on individual messages). Usage context is completely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Updates language settings' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting user interface), or error conditions. It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on success/failure, making it inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. While it's front-loaded and wastes no words, it fails to provide necessary context for effective tool use, making it more sparse than appropriately concise. It earns a middle score for structure but lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the contextual information is insufficient. The description doesn't explain what happens after the update (success response, error handling), doesn't mention dependencies or constraints, and provides no behavioral context. For a tool that modifies system settings, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'displayLanguage' well-documented in the schema as 'The language to display Gmail in, formatted as an RFC 3066 Language Tag'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Updates language settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_language'. It specifies the resource ('language settings') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'updates' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_language' or other update tools. The purpose is vague about what aspect of language settings is being updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), doesn't contrast with 'get_language' for reading settings, and offers no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action 'gets' without detailing whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, error conditions, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient, as it omits critical behavioral traits like response format or access requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Gets the specified delegate', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is overly brief to the point of under-specification, slightly reducing its effectiveness, but it remains structurally sound without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a delegate is, what data is returned, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full purpose and usage in the context of sibling tools like 'list_delegates'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, with 'delegateEmail' clearly documented as 'The email address of the delegate to retrieve'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract from the schema's clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets the specified delegate' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_delegate' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'gets' and resource 'delegate', but lacks specificity about what a delegate is or what information is retrieved, making it vague compared to more detailed sibling tools like 'get_profile' or 'get_auto_forwarding'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'list_delegates' for listing all delegates or 'remove_delegate' for deletion, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing delegate permissions or when retrieval might fail, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a write operation ('Creates') but fails to describe traits like required permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., email forwarding activation), or response format. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Creates a forwarding address', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but it earns full points for brevity and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, usage, or expected outcomes, failing to provide adequate context for an agent to invoke it correctly in a server with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'forwardingEmail' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps, as there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates a forwarding address' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity or distinguishing it from siblings. It lacks details about what resource is being created (e.g., in Gmail settings) or how it functions, making it vague compared to tools like 'create_filter' or 'create_label'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., user permissions), context (e.g., setting up email forwarding), or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction among siblings like 'update_auto_forwarding' or 'get_forwarding_address'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'get' operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the address doesn't exist, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about the forwarding address, error conditions, or how this differs from related tools. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'forwardingEmail' clearly documented in the schema as 'The forwarding address to be retrieved'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'gets the specified forwarding address', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_forwarding_addresses' or 'get_auto_forwarding', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval tool versus alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing forwarding address), compare it to 'list_forwarding_addresses' for bulk retrieval, or explain why one would retrieve a single address rather than list all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It does not disclose if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'gets' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the return format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Gets language settings', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. For a simple tool with no parameters, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what language settings are, the scope of retrieval, or the return format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. This is a simple tool, but the description fails to provide basic operational clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4 as it adequately covers the lack of inputs without unnecessary detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets language settings' restates the tool name 'get_language' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'gets' and resource 'language settings' but lacks detail on what language settings are (e.g., user interface language, regional formats) or scope (e.g., for current user, account-wide), which would distinguish it from siblings like 'update_language'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), context for usage, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone. This is inadequate for a tool in a server with many siblings, including 'update_language'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'send' a draft, implying a mutation or write operation, but doesn't specify if this requires permissions, what happens post-send (e.g., draft deletion or status change), or any side effects like notifications. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Send an existing draft'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, such as hinting at the outcome.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 'send' operation (likely a mutation with side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'send' does, the return value, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool that modifies data, this lack of context makes it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented as 'The ID of the draft to send'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without extra description needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Send an existing draft' clearly states the action (send) and resource (draft), but it's vague about what 'send' entails—whether it dispatches an email, publishes content, or another action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_draft' or 'delete_draft' by focusing on sending, but lacks specificity on the outcome or context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'send_message' for drafts, or if there are prerequisites like the draft being in a certain state. The description alone offers no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing label' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. It lacks critical context for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity (5 parameters including nested objects) and lack of annotations, which might warrant more explanatory content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (partial vs. full updates), error conditions, or return values. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema without behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema adequately documents inputs, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or optionality.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing label' clearly states the action (update) and resource (label), but it's quite generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_label' or 'create_label'. It lacks specificity about what aspects of a label can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'patch_label' or 'create_label'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing label ID) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Delete a draft' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it does not specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., if deletion is permanent or recoverable), error conditions, or response behavior. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action ('Delete a draft'). There is no wasted language, making it efficient for quick comprehension, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address critical context such as success/error responses, idempotency, or comparison to sibling tools. For a mutation tool with potential side effects, more detail is needed to guide safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples (e.g., draft ID format) or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a draft' clearly states the verb ('delete') and resource ('draft'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'draft' entails (e.g., email draft in Gmail) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_message' or 'delete_thread', which are similar deletion operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing draft ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete sent drafts), or compare to siblings like 'delete_message' or 'trash_message'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if changes affect email sending), rate limits, or response format, leaving critical gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though brevity limits informativeness, it scores high for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and output details, failing to compensate for missing structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying an update action, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('patches') and target ('specified send-as alias'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what fields can be updated or differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_send_as' or 'create_send_as', leaving ambiguity about scope and distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_send_as' or 'create_send_as'. The description lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal help for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Updates IMAP settings' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens to existing settings not mentioned. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient despite its limitations in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what permissions are needed, potential side effects, or how it relates to other settings tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Updates IMAP settings' clearly states the verb ('Updates') and resource ('IMAP settings'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of IMAP settings are updated and doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'update_pop' or 'update_auto_forwarding' that also update settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other settings update tools like 'update_pop' or 'update_auto_forwarding' in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Updates POP settings' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, rate limits, or what happens to existing settings not mentioned. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what POP settings are, what the update operation entails, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters having clear enum descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Updates POP settings' clearly states the action (updates) and resource (POP settings), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what POP settings are being updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_imap' or 'update_auto_forwarding' that also update email protocol settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from similar tools like 'update_imap' or 'update_auto_forwarding' in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'watch for changes' without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't explain that this likely creates a subscription, involves real-time notifications, requires external setup (Pub/Sub), has ongoing effects until stopped, or what changes trigger notifications. This leaves critical operational details unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it may be too brief given the lack of other context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (real-time monitoring with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or integration details, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how 'topicName' integrates with Pub/Sub, what 'labelIds' represent, or the implication of 'labelFilterAction'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Watch for changes to the user's mailbox' clearly states the action (watch) and resource (mailbox), but it's vague about what 'watch' entails (e.g., real-time monitoring, notifications) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'stop_mail_watch' or list operations. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., setting up Cloud Pub/Sub), when to choose it over polling tools like 'list_messages', or how it relates to 'stop_mail_watch'. The description offers no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a delegate, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify required permissions, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., email access changes), or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, effects), usage context, and what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly in a real-world scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'delegateEmail' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this (e.g., format constraints or validation rules), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Adds') and resource ('delegate to the specified account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'remove_delegate' or other delegate-related tools like 'get_delegate' and 'list_delegates', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing account permissions), when it's appropriate compared to 'remove_delegate' or other delegate tools, or any constraints on usage, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, rate limits, error handling for invalid IDs, or what happens to associated data. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive batch operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, error cases, and what to expect upon success, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'ids' parameter fully documented in the schema as 'The IDs of the messages to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete multiple messages' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (messages), with 'multiple' distinguishing it from the sibling 'delete_message' tool. However, it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., from where) or explicitly contrast with other deletion tools like 'trash_message' or 'delete_thread', keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_message' (for single messages), 'trash_message' (for moving to trash instead of permanent deletion), or 'batch_modify_messages' (for other batch operations). The description lacks context on prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'modify' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled (e.g., partial failures). The description lacks critical context for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element ('modify,' 'labels,' 'multiple messages') earns its place, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or response format, nor does it provide usage guidance relative to siblings. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for all three parameters (ids, addLabelIds, removeLabelIds). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining label ID formats or interaction between add/remove operations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('modify') and resource ('labels on multiple messages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from 'modify_message' (singular) and 'batch_delete_messages' (different operation), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'modify_thread' which might also handle labels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify_message' (for single messages) or 'batch_delete_messages' (for deletion). It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing message IDs or valid label IDs, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the 'raw' parameter mechanics but fails to describe critical behaviors such as required permissions, whether drafts are saved automatically, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the second sentence about 'raw' parameter mechanics feels somewhat disconnected and could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, permissions, and how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value by noting that 'raw' overrides other parameters, but this is implied in the schema's description. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a draft email') and resource ('in Gmail'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'send_draft', which would require explicit differentiation for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_message' or 'send_draft', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for creating drafts. The note about the 'raw' parameter is technical but doesn't address usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new label' implies a write operation but provides no information about permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns the created label object). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just three words that directly state the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what permissions are needed, or how it differs from similar tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new label'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'patch_label' or 'update_label', which also modify labels, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'patch_label' and 'update_label' that also modify labels, but the description doesn't explain when creation is appropriate versus updating existing labels.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates an alias but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects like rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('creates') and the resource ('custom send-as alias'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_send_as' or 'update_send_as', which handle modifications rather than creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'patch_send_as' or 'update_send_as', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for creating a send-as alias. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'deletes' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if the deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling), doesn't mention dependencies or side effects, and provides minimal context beyond the basic action. Given the complexity and risk profile, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'forwardingEmail' fully documented in the schema as 'The forwarding address to be deleted'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('deletes') and the target resource ('the specified forwarding address'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_filter' or 'delete_label', which follow similar patterns but target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing forwarding address), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'create_forwarding_address' or 'list_forwarding_addresses'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete a label' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting messages with that label). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the essential action. There's zero waste or redundancy. For a simple delete operation, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., success/failure response, error conditions), whether the action is idempotent, or how it interacts with sibling tools. The simplicity of the tool (one parameter) doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the label to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('delete') and resource ('label'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'patch_label' and 'update_label' by specifying deletion rather than modification. However, it doesn't specify what kind of label (e.g., Gmail label) or provide additional context about the resource being deleted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'patch_label' or 'update_label' for modifying labels instead of deleting them. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the label ID) or consequences of deletion. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a deletion, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., impact on sent emails). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Deletes') and resource ('send-as alias') without any unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose in minimal space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'Deletes'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like irreversibility, permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens post-deletion. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more context is needed to guide safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'the specified send-as alias', which aligns with the single parameter 'sendAsEmail' in the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter is fully documented as 'The send-as alias to be deleted'), the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and the target resource ('the specified send-as alias'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_message' or 'delete_label' by specifying the exact resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'remove_delegate' or 'delete_forwarding_address'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing send-as alias), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_send_as', 'patch_send_as', 'update_send_as', 'get_send_as', 'list_send_as', or 'verify_send_as' from the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent/reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or error handling, nor does it explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation message). Given the complexity of a destructive operation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('sendAsEmail' and 'id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or contextual constraints, meeting the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and the target resource ('the specified S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_send_as' or 'set_default_smime_info', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_send_as' or 'set_default_smime_info', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify if this requires authentication, what happens if IDs are invalid, or what the output format might be (e.g., file content vs. metadata). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with user data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Get a message attachment') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of it contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of accessing attachments (likely involving binary data or metadata), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., file content, download link, or attachment details), leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions ('ID of the message containing the attachment' and 'The ID of the attachment'). The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but minimal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a message attachment' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('message attachment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_message' or 'get_draft' that might also retrieve message-related content, so it's not fully specific about what distinguishes this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a message ID and attachment ID), exclusions, or how it differs from other 'get_' tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Gets' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the settings are returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'auto-forwarding settings' includes, the return format, or any behavioral context. Given the complexity of email configuration and the lack of structured documentation, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no inputs are required for this retrieval operation. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Gets auto-forwarding settings'), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling tool 'update_auto_forwarding', which handles modifications to the same resource. The description is functional but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'update_auto_forwarding' available, there's no indication that this is for read-only retrieval versus modification, nor any mention of prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Gets' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens on failure, or the format of returned settings. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'IMAP settings' includes (e.g., server details, port, SSL), the return format, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets IMAP settings' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('IMAP settings'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pop' (which gets POP settings) or 'update_imap' (which updates IMAP settings), leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when IMAP settings are needed), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'format options' (referring to 'includeBodyHtml'), but doesn't describe other key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), response format, or performance implications (e.g., size of returned data). For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get a specific message by ID') and adds a concise qualifier ('with format options'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for this tool's complexity. It's a retrieval tool with parameters, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), output structure, or sibling differentiation. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving the AI agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'includeBodyHtml'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at 'format options,' which loosely relates to 'includeBodyHtml.' However, it doesn't provide additional context like why HTML might be 'excessively large' (already in schema) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a specific message by ID with format options.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('message'), and key constraint ('by ID'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_draft' or 'get_thread,' which also retrieve specific items by ID, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_messages' for browsing or 'get_thread' for thread-level retrieval, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid message ID). Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states 'Gets', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output entails (e.g., structured data or simple status). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with 'Gets POP settings', a single phrase that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly structured for its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks context about what POP settings are, how they are retrieved, or what the result looks like, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here, warranting a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets POP settings' states a clear verb ('Gets') and resource ('POP settings'), which provides basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what POP settings are (e.g., server configuration, user preferences) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_imap' or 'update_pop', making it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools like 'update_pop' for modifications, leaving usage entirely implicit based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Gets'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the alias doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what information is returned, error handling, or typical use cases. The current description is too minimal given the lack of supporting structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sendAsEmail' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and resource ('the specified send-as alias'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_send_as' or 'get_profile', but the specificity of retrieving a single alias by identifier provides implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_send_as' for retrieving multiple aliases or 'get_profile' for user information. The description assumes the agent already knows when a specific alias retrieval is needed versus listing all available aliases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe what 'Get' entails—whether it's a read-only operation, what data is returned, error conditions, or performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., thread metadata, messages), potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), or behavioral nuances. This leaves the agent with incomplete context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('id' and 'includeBodyHtml') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific thread by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_message' or 'list_threads' beyond the basic resource specificity, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_message' or 'list_threads'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a thread ID, or contextual factors that might influence tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 implies a write operation ('insert/upload') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this overwrites existing configs, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and target without unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, effects) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage nuances), meeting the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('insert/upload') and the resource ('S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_default_smime_info' or 'delete_smime_info', which would require more specific context about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_default_smime_info' or 'delete_smime_info', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It states it's a list operation but doesn't describe return format, pagination behavior, ordering, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (since none exist), but fails to provide essential behavioral context for a tool with 4 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (draft objects with what fields?), doesn't mention pagination or ordering behavior, and provides no context about authentication or rate limits. For a tool with multiple filtering parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more guidance about expected results and usage patterns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('drafts in the user's mailbox'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other list tools like list_messages or list_threads by specifying 'drafts' as the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_draft (singular) or mention that this returns multiple drafts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use list_drafts versus list_messages (which might include drafts), get_draft (for a single draft), or create_draft. There's no context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases for listing drafts versus other message types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List messages' implies a read operation, the description fails to mention critical behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (implied by pageToken parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, whether results are sorted, or what happens when no messages match filters. The mention of 'optional filtering' is too vague to provide meaningful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation with filtering capabilities. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the core action first, then the filtering capability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (message objects, metadata only, etc.), doesn't mention pagination behavior despite having a pageToken parameter, and provides no context about performance implications (especially regarding the includeBodyHtml parameter's warning about excessive size). The description leaves too many open questions for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, providing complete documentation for all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'optional filtering' which aligns with parameters like 'q' and 'labelIds', but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how these filters interact or typical use patterns. This meets the baseline 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List messages') and target ('in the user's mailbox'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_drafts', 'list_threads', or 'get_message', which all involve retrieving message-related data from the same mailbox context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'optional filtering' which implies some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_drafts', 'list_threads', or 'get_message'. There's no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or typical use cases that would help an agent choose between similar retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It does not cover critical aspects like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the essential action. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with six parameters and complex filtering options. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting all six parameters. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips, meeting the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('threads in the user's mailbox'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_messages' or 'list_drafts', which are similar listing operations, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_messages' or 'get_thread'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, offering minimal assistance in decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'modify' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if label IDs are invalid. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., error handling, side effects) and doesn't hint at return values. For a tool that modifies data, more guidance on outcomes and constraints is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying label modification but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., can add and remove simultaneously) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Modify the labels on a message' clearly states the action (modify) and resource (labels on a message). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_message' or 'trash_message' by focusing on label modification rather than deletion or moving. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'batch_modify_messages' which handles multiple messages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing message ID), contrast with 'batch_modify_messages' for bulk operations, or specify scenarios like organizing emails versus deleting them. Usage is implied but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('modify') but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, return values, and usage context, leaving the agent with incomplete information to operate the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters (id, addLabelIds, removeLabelIds). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as label ID formats or interaction effects, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('modify') and resource ('labels applied to a thread'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'modify_message' or 'update_label', but the specificity is adequate for understanding what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_label' or 'modify_message', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It's a bare statement of function without operational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Patch an existing label (partial update)' indicates a mutation operation but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. 'Patch an existing label (partial update)' efficiently communicates the core action and key constraint. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a successful patch returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While the schema thoroughly documents parameters, the overall context for safe and effective tool use is incomplete, especially given the presence of similar tools like 'update_label' that require differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying partial updates (which the schema already supports through optional fields). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage where the description doesn't need to compensate, but adds no extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('patch') and resource ('existing label'), with 'partial update' specifying the update type. It distinguishes from 'update_label' (likely a full replacement) but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'create_label' or 'delete_label'. The purpose is specific but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_label' (which appears in sibling tools) or 'create_label'. The description implies it's for modifying existing labels, but provides no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or when partial vs full updates are appropriate. Usage is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'removes' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if the action is reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., permissions, reversibility), expected outcomes, or error handling, which are crucial for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'delegateEmail' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples or edge cases), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('removes') and the resource ('the specified delegate'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_send_as' or 'delete_filter' that also perform removal operations on different resources, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing delegate), exclusions, or related tools like 'list_delegates' for checking delegates first, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'mechanics of the raw parameter,' which adds some context about a specific behavior (that 'raw' overrides other parameters), but fails to cover critical aspects: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—just two sentences—with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a specific note about parameter behavior. However, the second sentence is somewhat cryptic ('Note the mechanics of the raw parameter') without elaboration, which slightly reduces clarity but doesn't detract from overall efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It covers the basic purpose and hints at one parameter's behavior but omits critical details: it doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, what the return value is, or how this tool differs from siblings like 'send_draft'. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting the 'mechanics of the raw parameter' (i.e., that it overrides other fields), which provides some semantic insight. However, it doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or usage examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Send an email message to specified recipients.' It provides a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('email message'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'send_draft' or 'create_draft', which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions 'Note the mechanics of the raw parameter,' which hints at a specific use case for advanced users, but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice compared to alternatives like 'send_draft' or 'create_draft'. No prerequisites or contextual usage rules are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'set' operation, implying mutation, but doesn't clarify if it overwrites existing defaults, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant or unnecessary information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or what constitutes success, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool operates in context. This is particularly problematic given the tool's potential impact on email security settings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the two parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'sendAsEmail' is an alias and 'id' refers to an S/MIME config, which is already covered in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and the resource ('default S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'insert_smime_info' or 'delete_smime_info', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'insert_smime_info' or 'update_send_as', nor does it mention prerequisites such as existing S/MIME configurations or send-as aliases. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose appropriately among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Move to the trash') but lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, if it affects related data (e.g., threads), or typical response behavior. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand immediately. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and no complex behavior to explain.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like reversibility, permissions, or error conditions, nor does it explain what happens after trashing (e.g., if the message remains accessible). Given the context, more detail is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' clearly documented in the schema as 'The ID of the message to move to trash'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as ID format or sourcing, but the schema provides adequate baseline information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Move') and target resource ('a message to the trash'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_message' or 'trash_thread', which would require more specific language about scope or permanence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_message' (permanent deletion) or 'untrash_message' (reversal). It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the message must be accessible or owned by the user, leaving the agent with insufficient context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Move to the trash' implies a destructive mutation (not a read operation), it doesn't clarify whether this is reversible (via 'untrash_thread'), what permissions are required, whether it affects child messages, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'trash' means operationally, whether the action is reversible, what the expected response looks like, or how this differs from permanent deletion. Given the complexity of thread manipulation and multiple sibling tools, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'The ID of the thread to move to trash'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Move') and resource ('a thread') with specific destination ('to the trash'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'trash_message' or 'delete_thread', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trash_message', 'delete_thread', or 'untrash_thread'. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for choosing this specific trash operation over other deletion/mutation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't clarify what 'remove from trash' means operationally (e.g., restores to inbox, requires specific permissions, or has side effects). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after removal (e.g., where the message goes, what the response contains), nor does it address error conditions or permissions required. The context signals indicate this tool modifies data, yet the description lacks critical behavioral details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('remove') and resource ('a message from the trash'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'untrash_thread', which performs a similar operation on threads rather than individual messages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the message must already be in trash), nor does it contrast with related tools like 'delete_message' (permanent deletion) or 'trash_message' (moving to trash).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a reversible operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens if the thread isn't in trash. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what happens after untrashing (e.g., where the thread goes), potential side effects, or error conditions. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('remove') and target resource ('a thread from the trash'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'untrash_message', but the distinction is implied through the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_thread' or 'trash_thread', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the thread must already be in trash). The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Updates' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are immediate or reversible, what happens to existing settings not mentioned, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward update operation and is front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure, updated settings), doesn't mention authentication requirements or side effects, and provides no behavioral context. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (enabled, emailAddress, disposition) with clear descriptions and an enum for disposition. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Updates') and the target resource ('automatic forwarding settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_auto_forwarding' or other settings update tools like 'update_vacation' or 'update_imap', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing existing forwarding settings), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'create_forwarding_address' or 'update_vacation'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Updates' implies mutation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid email), or what happens on success (e.g., confirmation). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Updates'), making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects), usage context, or return values. Given the complexity of updating email aliases with 6 parameters, more guidance is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain interactions between parameters like 'isPrimary' and 'treatAsAlias'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Updates a send-as alias' clearly states the verb ('Updates') and resource ('send-as alias'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_send_as' (creation) and 'delete_send_as' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'patch_send_as' (partial update).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'patch_send_as' or 'create_send_as'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing alias), exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether changes are immediate, require specific permissions, affect existing settings not mentioned, or have side effects. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on usage scenarios, behavioral details, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for an agent to understand the full scope of the tool's operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how enableAutoReply interacts with startTime/endTime). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('update') and resource ('vacation responder settings'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_vacation' or 'update_auto_forwarding', which would require mentioning what exactly gets updated about vacation settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing vacation settings to exist), compare to 'get_vacation' for reading settings, or specify use cases like setting up out-of-office replies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, what happens if the alias doesn't exist, or the expected outcome (e.g., email sent confirmation). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain what verification entails, potential side effects, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond the basic action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sendAsEmail' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is for specifying the alias, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sends a verification email') and the target resource ('specified send-as alias'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_send_as' or 'update_send_as', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the send-as alias must exist first), nor does it reference related tools like 'create_send_as' or 'get_send_as' for context, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states basic retrieval. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the draft doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, and output expectations, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in varied scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the 'id' parameter but doesn't explain the optional 'includeBodyHtml' or provide context beyond the schema's technical descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific draft by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_message' or 'get_thread' which follow similar patterns, nor does it mention the 'list_drafts' sibling for bulk retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention using 'list_drafts' for browsing drafts or 'get_message' for similar retrieval of non-draft messages, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a draft ID from elsewhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a retrieval operation ('Get'), which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the label doesn't exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Perfectly sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and output information, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying 'by ID', which is already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific label'), specifying it's by ID. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_labels' which returns multiple labels, but doesn't explicitly mention this distinction in the description text itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_labels' or 'patch_label'. The description implies it's for retrieving a single known label, but doesn't provide explicit usage context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the profile includes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the profile contains, the response format, or any behavioral aspects like permissions or errors. For a tool with no structured metadata, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('current user's Gmail profile'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools that might retrieve other profile types or scopes, though none are listed among the siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Gets'), which implies it's non-destructive and likely read-only, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the config doesn't exist. This leaves gaps for a tool that retrieves sensitive security configurations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states the action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. For a read operation with two well-documented parameters, it's adequate but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or return format, which would be helpful for an AI agent to use it correctly in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('sendAsEmail' and 'id'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it mentions 'specified send-as alias' which aligns with 'sendAsEmail' but doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide additional context like format examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('specified S/MIME config'), specifying it's for a particular send-as alias. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_smime_info' (which lists all) and 'delete_smime_info' (which removes). However, it doesn't explicitly mention it retrieves a single config, which could be inferred but isn't stated outright.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_smime_info' (for listing all configs) or 'set_default_smime_info' (for setting defaults). The description implies usage for a specific config but doesn't clarify prerequisites or exclusions, such as needing existing S/MIME configurations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Lists') but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or output format (e.g., list structure, filter details). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without wasted words. It directly addresses what the tool does ('Lists the message filters'), making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what 'Lists' entails (e.g., returns an array of filter objects, includes metadata), authentication needs, or error handling. For a list operation with no structured support, more context is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't add unnecessary information beyond the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Lists') and resource ('message filters of a Gmail user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_filter' (which retrieves a specific filter) or 'create_filter' (which creates one), missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user authentication), compare it to 'get_filter' for single-filter retrieval, or specify scenarios like bulk filter management, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation but does not mention whether it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with user data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loads the key action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool in a complex email management context, this leaves too much unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add any parameter details, which is acceptable here, but it could have clarified implicit context like account specification. Baseline is 4 due to zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Lists') and the resource ('forwarding addresses for the specified account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'list_delegates' or 'list_filters', which reduces its specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_forwarding_address' for retrieving a specific address or 'create_forwarding_address' for adding one. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists aliases but does not describe the return format, pagination, error conditions, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to clarity, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included) or any behavioral aspects like rate limits or errors. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately does not add parameter details, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Lists') and the resource ('send-as aliases for the specified account'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_send_as' or 'patch_send_as', which might handle similar resources differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the account must be authenticated or have specific permissions, and does not mention sibling tools like 'get_send_as' that might retrieve a single alias instead of a list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Lists') but fails to mention critical details such as whether it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted (e.g., pagination, JSON structure), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and target but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context, which are important for effective tool invocation by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sendAsEmail' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the alias's role or usage context. Thus, it meets the baseline for adequate but unenhanced parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Lists') and the resource ('S/MIME configs for the specified send-as alias'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_smime_info' or 'set_default_smime_info', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_smime_info' or 'insert_smime_info'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what happens if vacation is disabled, or the response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about when to use it, behavioral details, or return values. For a simple retrieval tool, this is passable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, earning a high baseline score. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'vacation responder settings', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_vacation' by specifying retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't specify what exactly is retrieved (e.g., status, message, dates), keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., vacation must be enabled), related tools like 'update_vacation', or typical use cases. Without this context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists delegates but lacks details on permissions required, pagination, sorting, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, as a list operation with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format or constraints, making it minimally complete but with room for improvement in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary details, earning a baseline high score for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Lists') and the resource ('delegates for the specified account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_delegate', which might retrieve a single delegate, leaving some ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_delegate' for retrieving a specific delegate or other list tools like 'list_labels'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination, sorting), whether it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context (e.g., output format, pagination) to be fully complete. The current description leaves the agent guessing about the return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all labels') and the resource ('in the user's mailbox'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_label' (which retrieves a single label) or 'create_label' (which creates a new label), though the 'list' vs 'get/create' distinction is somewhat implied by naming conventions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_label' for retrieving a specific label or 'create_label' for adding new labels, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool stops notifications, which implies a mutation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., whether it affects other users), or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, as a mutation tool, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or effects, leaving it minimally viable but with clear gaps for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required by not mentioning any, earning a baseline score above 3 for appropriate handling.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop receiving push notifications') and the target resource ('for the given user mailbox'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'watch_mailbox', but the verb 'Stop' implies it's the counterpart to a watch operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by referencing 'push notifications' and 'user mailbox', suggesting it should be used when notifications need to be disabled. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives or mention prerequisites like needing an active watch to stop, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying 'immediately and permanently', which implies irreversibility and urgency beyond just 'delete'. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like permissions needed, error conditions, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple deletion with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the destructive nature but lacks details on prerequisites, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, it should do more to guide safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('delete'), the resource ('a message'), and specifies the manner ('immediately and permanently'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'trash_message' or 'batch_delete_messages'. It uses specific verbs and provides scope that differentiates it from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trash_message' (which might be reversible) or 'batch_delete_messages' (for multiple deletions). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, offering only basic functional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gmail-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HitmanLy007/gmail-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HitmanLy007/gmail-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gmail-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HitmanLy007/gmail-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/HitmanLy007/gmail-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/HitmanLy007/gmail-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server