gmail_get_message

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get full email content' indicates a read-only fetch and names the expected return, but it does not disclose details like body decoding, attachment handling, auth needs, or error behavior. This is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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

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

The description is a single front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block. Every line earns its place and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool, and both parameters and the core return behavior are clearly covered. There is no output schema, so a more detailed description of the returned email structure would improve completeness, but nothing necessary to make the call correctly is missing.

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 fully explains message_id as the ID from gmail_list_unread and account as the email address to use with an explicit omit-for-default instruction. Both parameters gain meaning beyond their raw schema types.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Get full email content') on a specific resource ('by message ID'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like gmail_list_unread and gmail_send. The reference to 'from gmail_list_unread' also establishes its role in the workflow.

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?

It gives clear context by saying the message_id comes from gmail_list_unread, creating an explicit usage path. It also clarifies account selection and default behavior. It does not spell out exclusions or alternatives, but none are needed given the tool's distinct purpose.

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