gmail_get_thread

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 communicates the core behavior (returning a thread and all its messages) but does not disclose additional traits such as response format, potential size, or authentication requirements. However, as a read-only get operation, the risk is lower, making a score of 3 appropriate.

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 sentence that is both concise and informative. It front-loads the key action and resource without any extraneous words or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read tool with a clear name and schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose. It does not detail return values, but the phrase 'with all its messages' gives enough context. The absence of an output schema and the presence of a format parameter make the description slightly incomplete, but it remains solid.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, including the format enum. The description adds no extra semantic information beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get a Gmail thread with all its messages', specifying both the action (get) and the resource (Gmail thread). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_get_message (which retrieves a single message) and gmail_search_messages (which finds threads).

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 implies usage (when you need a complete thread) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or references to sibling tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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