gmail_threads_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a low burden. It adds the key behavioral detail that all messages in the thread are returned, which is useful. No contradictions with annotations. However, no additional side-effect or formatting details are provided 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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words. The verb, resource, and key scoping detail ('all messages') are front-loaded. Efficient and well-structured.

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-only operation with full schema coverage, the description provides the essential context that the thread is retrieved in full. No output schema exists, but the return value is implicitly a thread with messages. Lacking only explicit notes on pagination or response size, which are minor for this 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, format, userId) with adequate descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('full Gmail thread by ID'), and scope ('all messages in the conversation'). This clearly differentiates it from gmail_messages_get (single message) and gmail_threads_list (listing threads). No ambiguity.

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 full thread) but does not explicitly state when to use this over gmail_messages_get or gmail_threads_list. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the term 'full thread'.

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