gmail_get_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'full content' and indicates a read-only intent via 'preview', but it does not explicitly state that the draft is not modified, nor does it mention any auth requirements or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple get operation but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get a draft email') and adds relevant context ('full content for preview before sending'). There is zero wasted text.

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?

The description is clear but minimal. There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values; 'full content' is vague and does not specify whether attachments, headers, or metadata are included. It also omits potential error cases or prerequisites, making it only minimally complete for a simple tool.

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 100% for the two parameters (draftId and accountId), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, providing no extra value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a draft email' with the purpose 'for preview before sending'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_get_message and gmail_get_thread, which operate on non-draft messages.

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 phrase 'for preview before sending' provides clear usage context, implying the tool is for retrieving drafts before they are sent. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use gmail_get_message instead for sent messages', so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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