gmail_get_vacation

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 discloses a key behavioral requirement: 'Requires settings scope' (an authorization detail). It also clarifies what the tool shows (whether enabled and configuration), giving the agent an understanding of the response. It does not describe side effects, but as a 'get' operation, none are expected. The auth scope disclosure adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds output detail and an auth requirement. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place. Information is front-loaded with the action immediately.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately covers the key aspects: what it does, what it returns conceptually, and an auth requirement. It does not describe the exact structure of the configuration, but for a getter with no output schema, this is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without further clarification.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter accountId, describing it as 'The Google account ID, alias, or email.' The description adds no extra detail about the parameter, but given the full schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'for an account' aligns with the parameter but does not enhance meaning 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get the vacation auto-reply settings') and the resource ('for an account'). It also elaborates on the output ('Shows whether vacation responder is enabled and its configuration'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_set_vacation. The verb 'Get' and explicit mention of vacation settings make the purpose 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?

The description clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving vacation auto-reply settings, which implies when it should be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only nature and specific resource are enough to guide selection. The omission of a direct reference to gmail_set_vacation is a minor gap, but the context alone is sufficient.

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