gmail_get_email

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 mentions 'including headers and body' but does not explain what different format values (minimal, full, raw, metadata) return, how errors are handled, or any authentication or rate limit considerations. The description is too sparse for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences plus an Args list. No extraneous information. However, it could be slightly more structured, but for a simple tool it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, simple fetch), the description covers the basics but is incomplete. It fails to clarify the message_id requirement contradiction, explain the format parameter options, or mention any output schema behavior. The presence of an output schema does not fully compensate for these gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that message_id is required and lists format options, but there is a contradiction: the schema marks message_id as optional (default null, anyOf null/string). This inconsistency undermines the semantics. Additionally, the description does not explain what each format value does, leaving the agent to guess.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool fetches a single Gmail message by ID, including headers and body. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_list_emails (list multiple) and gmail_send_email (send).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from context. No exclusions or comparisons are given.

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