gmail_threads_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full' entails beyond 'all messages'. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a full Gmail thread by ID') and adds clarifying detail ('all messages in the conversation'). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error cases, or behavioral context needed for effective use. While concise, it lacks the depth required for a tool with no structured support beyond the input schema.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'by ID' which aligns with the 'id' parameter but doesn't explain semantics like 'userId' usage or 'format' options. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most parameter details.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a full Gmail thread by ID'), specifying it retrieves all messages in the conversation. It distinguishes from gmail_messages_get (single message) but not explicitly from gmail_threads_list (list vs. single thread). The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from the list sibling.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_threads_list or gmail_messages_get. The description implies usage for retrieving a specific thread by ID, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's a basic statement without usage instructions.

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