get_message

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait by promising a 'plain-text body' and a separate 'attachment list' rather than raw MIME, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, size/truncation limits, or what happens for messages without a text part.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The returned-content clause is appended where it is most useful, and nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields covers most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior, such as HTML-only messages or large attachments, which the description does not address.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is just a bare string with no format hint. The description partially compensates by framing the argument as identifying 'one Gmail message', implying message_id is the message identifier, but it never states the expected ID form or where to obtain it.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('one Gmail message') and enumerates the payload (headers, plain-text body, attachment list). That is enough to tell it apart from list-style siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_thread, which is the nearest ambiguous alternative.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative (get_thread for whole conversations, list-style tools for discovery). The only signal is implicit in the word 'one', leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.

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