gmail_get_message

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

The read-only annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds that the result includes body and headers, which is useful beyond the schema. However, the wording 'in full' is slightly misleading because the format parameter can request metadata or minimal representations. No side effects or failure behavior are mentioned.

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-oaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short for a simple retrieval tool, though it could have used the space to clarify the format parameter.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter descriptions, this tool needs a more complete description to be invoked correctly. An agent would still have to infer the meaning of 'id' and the effects of 'format' from the schema enum alone. The description covers the result type but not enough invocation context for a reliable call.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not explain that 'id' identifies the message or what 'format' values like full, metadata, and minimal actually return. The only weak hint is 'in full,' which loosely corresponds to the default format value.

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 identifies that this tool retrieves one specific message and includes the body and headers, so an agent can distinguish it from broader operations like gmail_search or gmail_get_thread. It lacks an explicit verb, though the tool name supplies the action and the meaning is still unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings such as gmail_get_thread or gmail_search. The description implies a single-message retrieval context but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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