Gmail MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific Gmail resources and actions. The tools are well-organized by resource type (messages, threads, labels, delegates, etc.) with no ambiguous overlaps. For example, delete_message vs. trash_message have clear distinctions in permanent vs. temporary deletion.
Naming Consistency5/5
The tool names follow a perfectly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout (e.g., create_draft, delete_label, get_profile, update_vacation). All tools use snake_case with clear action verbs followed by specific nouns, making the naming highly predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 64 tools, this is an extremely large set that feels overwhelming for a single server. While Gmail has many features, this count suggests over-fragmentation of operations that could have been grouped more efficiently. The number exceeds typical well-scoped MCP servers (3-15 tools) by a significant margin.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage of Gmail's functionality including message/thread management, label operations, delegation, filters, forwarding, send-as aliases, S/MIME configuration, settings management, and mailbox watching. There are no obvious gaps for core Gmail workflows.
Average 2.9/5 across 64 of 64 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that creates resources, this lack of transparency is critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with two words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary context and doesn't front-load essential information, making it inefficient despite its short length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that creates resources with complex nested parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a filter is, what system it operates in, what happens after creation, or provide any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting both 'criteria' and 'action' parameters with their nested properties. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates a filter' is a tautology that restates the tool name without providing meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of filter (e.g., email filter in Gmail) or what resources it operates on, making it vague compared to more specific sibling tools like 'create_label' or 'create_forwarding_address'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, related tools like 'list_filters' or 'delete_filter', or typical use cases, leaving the agent with no context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('creates') without detailing outcomes (e.g., whether it returns an ID, requires confirmation, or has side effects), permissions needed, rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks front-loaded critical information (e.g., purpose differentiation or behavioral traits), making it minimally structured but not effectively brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what happens after creation (e.g., return value or next steps), does not address error handling, and offers no usage context. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'forwardingEmail' well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format constraints or examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the documentation burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates a forwarding address' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks details about what a forwarding address is, what resource it creates (e.g., in Gmail settings), or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_send_as' or 'add_delegate'. The purpose is minimally stated but not clarified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), context (e.g., for email forwarding setup), or exclusions (e.g., not for modifying existing addresses). This leaves the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, what happens if the filter doesn't exist, or any rate limits. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, with no wasted language. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's perfectly efficient in terms of word count and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'filter' is in this context, what information is returned, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would have insufficient information to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented in the schema as 'The ID of the filter to be fetched.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets a filter' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of filter (e.g., email filter, data filter) or what resource is being retrieved, nor does it distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_filters' which likely returns multiple filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to use 'get_filter' versus 'list_filters', or any contextual information about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a thread' implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is permanent, requires special permissions, has confirmation prompts, affects related messages, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the essential function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like permanence, side effects, error conditions, or return values. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented in the schema as 'The ID of the thread to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a thread' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of thread (email thread, chat thread, etc.) or what system this operates on, though sibling tools suggest it's likely for email threads. This provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'trash_thread' and 'untrash_thread' available, the description doesn't explain whether deletion is permanent versus reversible, or when to choose deletion over trashing. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'updates' implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Updates language settings', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, usage context, or return values, making it inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively beyond basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'displayLanguage' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but the high coverage justifies a baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Updates language settings' restates the tool name 'update_language' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'updates' and resource 'language settings' but lacks detail on what aspect of language settings (e.g., display language, interface language) or scope (e.g., user, account), distinguishing it poorly from siblings like 'get_language'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context (e.g., user settings vs. system-wide), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_language' for retrieval. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Gets' implies a read operation, but it doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the delegate doesn't exist), rate limits, or what data is returned. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Gets the specified delegate') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's overly terse, bordering on under-specification, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter set, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'gets' returns (e.g., delegate details or status), behavioral traits, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation beyond basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'delegateEmail' clearly documented as 'The email address of the delegate to retrieve'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets the specified delegate' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('delegate'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'gets' entails (e.g., retrieves details vs. fetches metadata) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_delegates' or 'remove_delegate', which would require more specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a delegate email), contrast with 'list_delegates' for multiple delegates, or specify scenarios where this is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Gets' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what data is returned (e.g., status, configuration), or potential errors (e.g., if the address doesn't exist). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's front-loaded but overly terse, potentially sacrificing clarity for brevity. It could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'gets' returns (e.g., a JSON object with fields like status or creation date), error conditions, or how it fits into broader workflows. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's full context and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'forwardingEmail' documented as 'The forwarding address to be retrieved'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets the specified forwarding address' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('forwarding address'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_auto_forwarding' or 'get_delegate' beyond the resource name, and it's somewhat vague about what 'gets' entails (e.g., retrieves details vs. just existence).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., if the forwarding address must exist), contrast with 'list_forwarding_addresses' for bulk retrieval, or specify use cases. Without such context, the agent must infer usage 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a label but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'patch_label', leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to navigate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all 5 parameters thoroughly with enums and nested object details. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing label' clearly states the action (update) and resource (label), but it's vague about what aspects can be updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'patch_label', which appears to serve a similar purpose, leaving ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'patch_label' or 'create_label'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing label ID, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'Create a new label' without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions needed, whether this is a mutating operation, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded with the core action. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a label is, how it's used, what happens after creation, or provide any context beyond the bare minimum. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new label' clearly states the action (create) and resource (label), but it's vague about what a label is in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_label' or 'update_label'. It meets the basic requirement of stating what the tool does but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'patch_label' or 'update_label'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or any context for usage, leaving the agent with no direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Patches' which implies a partial update, but doesn't clarify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or response format, and while the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage nuances). According to rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%) and no param info is in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Patches the specified send-as alias' clearly indicates a modification action on a specific resource (send-as alias), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what aspects are being patched or differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_send_as' or 'create_send_as', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_send_as' or 'create_send_as', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Updates' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing settings not mentioned, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just three words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. For a tool with comprehensive schema documentation, this brevity is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after the update, what permissions are required, or provide any error handling context. The agent would need to make assumptions about the tool's behavior and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters having clear enum descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Updates POP settings' clearly states the verb ('Updates') and resource ('POP settings'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific aspects of POP settings are updated, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_imap' or 'update_auto_forwarding' that also update settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like 'get_pop' (which presumably retrieves POP settings). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'Adds' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether this is reversible, what happens on duplicate attempts, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a delegate is, what permissions are required, what happens on success/failure, or how this relates to sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects of this write operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'delegateEmail' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Adds') and target resource ('a delegate to the specified account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'remove_delegate' or explain what a delegate is in this context, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_delegates' or 'remove_delegate'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether deletions are permanent or reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, error handling, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action and resource without any wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error cases, return values, and differentiation from siblings, making it incomplete for safe and effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 the 'ids' parameter adequately. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints on the array size, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('multiple messages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'delete_message' tool, which appears to delete single messages, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_message' or 'trash_message'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or recommended scenarios for batch deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is 'modify' but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling for invalid IDs, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context about permissions, side effects, error conditions, and response format. The agent cannot safely invoke this tool without guessing at behavioral implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 no additional semantic context beyond implying label modification. It doesn't explain label ID formats, constraints on simultaneous add/remove, or effects on message visibility. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('modify') and resource ('labels on multiple messages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from single-message operations like 'modify_message' by specifying 'multiple messages', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other label-related tools like 'update_label'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when batch modification is preferred over single-message operations, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'modify_message' or label-specific tools. The agent must infer usage 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions 'Note the mechanics of the raw parameter' but doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond creation (e.g., where drafts are stored, if it requires authentication, or what happens on failure). This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value by noting the 'mechanics of the raw parameter' but doesn't elaborate on what those mechanics are or provide additional context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('draft email in Gmail'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_draft' or 'send_message', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_message' or 'send_draft', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for creating drafts. It only hints at parameter mechanics without addressing tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'creates' implies a write operation, it doesn't address permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, whether there are side effects, what permissions are needed, or how to handle errors. The agent lacks critical context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('creates') and resource ('custom send-as alias'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'patch_send_as' or 'update_send_as', which would require mentioning it's for initial creation rather than modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'patch_send_as' or 'update_send_as'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, error handling, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the essential action. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a deletion tool (a mutation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, consequences, error cases, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'The ID of the draft to delete'. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond this, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is high. No additional param info is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a draft' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (draft), but it's vague about scope—does it delete a single draft by ID, all drafts, or drafts matching criteria? It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_message' or 'delete_thread' by specifying 'draft', but lacks specificity on what constitutes a draft in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for permanent deletion versus moving to trash, or how it differs from 'trash_message' or 'batch_delete_messages' for drafts. The description offers no context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Deletes a filter' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting associated messages). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, front-loading the core action and resource. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a filter is, the implications of deletion, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity of a delete operation in a system with many sibling tools, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the filter to be deleted'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond this, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is appropriately high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes a filter' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (filter), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_draft', 'delete_label', or 'delete_message', which all follow the same 'delete [resource]' pattern without specifying what makes a filter unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing filter ID), what happens after deletion, or how it differs from other deletion tools like 'batch_delete_messages' or 'delete_thread'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if the deletion is permanent or reversible, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context like what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'forwardingEmail' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and the resource ('the specified forwarding address'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_filter' or 'delete_label' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing forwarding address), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_forwarding_address' or 'list_forwarding_addresses' from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states 'Delete a label' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting associated messages). This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('Delete a label'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address critical context like deletion consequences, error handling, or return values, making it inadequate for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a label'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_draft' or 'delete_message', which follow the same pattern, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention if this is irreversible or if there are prerequisites like checking the label's existence first, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Deletes' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are side effects, or what the return value might be, leaving critical context missing for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sendAsEmail' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and the resource ('the specified send-as alias'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_delegate' or 'delete_forwarding_address', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'patch_send_as' and 'update_send_as' available, there's no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus modification, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive operation ('Deletes'), but lacks details on permissions required, whether the deletion is reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, reversibility) and doesn't explain what happens upon success or failure, leaving critical gaps for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('sendAsEmail' and 'id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and the target resource ('the specified S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_send_as' or 'set_default_smime_info', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_send_as' or 'set_default_smime_info'. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what format the attachment is returned in, size limitations, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the essential information immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what format the attachment is returned in (binary data, metadata, download link), whether there are size limitations, or what permissions are required. Given the complexity of attachment handling and lack of structured information, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters (messageId and id). The description doesn't add any semantic context beyond what the schema provides - no explanation of where to find these IDs or their relationship. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'a message attachment', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_message' or 'get_draft', but the specificity of 'attachment' distinguishes it from other retrieval operations in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling 'get_' tools (get_message, get_draft, get_thread, etc.), there's no indication of prerequisites, when this is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other retrieval operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Gets' settings, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output might look like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. For a simple tool with no parameters, this level of conciseness is ideal and earns full marks.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'auto-forwarding settings' include (e.g., enabled/disabled, forwarding address, filters) or the return format. For a read operation, this lack of output details is a significant gap, making it hard for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets auto-forwarding settings' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('auto-forwarding settings'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_forwarding_address' or 'update_auto_forwarding', leaving the scope vague. It's adequate but lacks specificity about what exactly is retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this retrieves global settings, user-specific settings, or how it relates to 'update_auto_forwarding' or 'get_forwarding_address'. The description offers no context for usage, making it hard for an agent to choose appropriately among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned data. The description is too sparse for a tool that likely involves data retrieval.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'draft' entails in this context, what data is returned, or potential limitations (e.g., size concerns hinted by the 'includeBodyHtml' parameter). More context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('id' and 'includeBodyHtml'). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying an ID is needed, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 specific draft by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_message' or 'get_thread' which follow the same pattern, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_drafts' for browsing or 'get_message' for non-draft messages. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios for retrieving drafts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Gets' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if authentication is required, what happens on failure, or the format of returned data. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage, as critical behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with 'Gets IMAP settings', a single phrase that front-loads the core action. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication requirements, error handling, return format, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in a complex email management context, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets IMAP settings' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('IMAP settings'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what IMAP settings are retrieved (e.g., server configuration, user preferences) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pop' or 'update_imap', which handle related but distinct operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., user authentication needed), or comparisons to siblings like 'update_imap' for modifying settings or 'get_pop' for retrieving POP settings, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a label by ID but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error handling for invalid IDs, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a data store.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'label' is in this context, what data is returned, or error scenarios. For a retrieval tool in a system with many sibling operations, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as ID format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 specific label by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_labels' or 'patch_label' beyond the basic operation, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_labels' for browsing or 'patch_label' for updates. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('gets'), but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns structured data, has side effects, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with user or system settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly, which is ideal for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (accessing settings) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'language settings' includes, the return format, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable here—it avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't mislead or omit required details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets language settings' clearly states the action (gets) and resource (language settings), but it's somewhat vague about what 'language settings' entails (e.g., user preferences, system defaults, or locale configurations). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_language' by implying a read-only operation, but lacks specificity on scope or content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons to other tools (e.g., 'update_language' for modifications), leaving usage decisions to inference based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Gets POP settings' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what POP settings include, whether authentication is required, potential rate limits, or the format of the returned data. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Gets POP settings'. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but insufficient. It lacks details on what POP settings entail, how the data is returned, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that likely retrieves configuration data, more context would help the agent understand the scope and use case, especially with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied because the schema fully handles the parameter semantics, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets POP settings' clearly states the action (get) and resource (POP settings), which is adequate for understanding the basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'get_' siblings like 'get_auto_forwarding' or 'get_imap' that also retrieve settings, leaving the specific scope vague. It avoids being a tautology by specifying 'POP settings' rather than just restating the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'update_pop' and other 'get_' tools for different settings (e.g., 'get_auto_forwarding'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of guidance makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'Gets', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., if alias doesn't exist), or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 simple parameter schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on authentication, error handling, return values, or how this fits into broader workflows (e.g., with 'update_send_as'). For a tool in a complex server with many siblings, more guidance would help the agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'sendAsEmail' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'The send-as alias to be retrieved', so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting. No compensation is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and resource ('the specified send-as alias'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_send_as' (which retrieves multiple) and 'create_send_as' (which creates new). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource type (e.g., Gmail alias) or differentiate from 'get_profile' or similar getters, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing alias), contrast with 'list_send_as' for bulk retrieval, or specify use cases like checking alias details before updates. This leaves the agent to infer usage 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'insert/upload' operation, implying a write/mutation, but fails to mention critical aspects like required permissions, whether it overwrites existing configs, error handling, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), output format, or error conditions, which are crucial for an agent to use it effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic details about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('insert/upload') and the resource ('S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_default_smime_info' or 'delete_smime_info', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_default_smime_info' or 'delete_smime_info', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It merely restates the action without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List drafts' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the results will be in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly while still conveying the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. For a tool that returns data (especially with multiple filtering parameters), the description should at least hint at what kind of data structure to expect or mention that results are filtered/paginated. The current description leaves too many open questions about how the tool behaves and what it returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no parameter information, but the input schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation for all 4 parameters. This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting of explaining what each parameter does and their constraints. The description adds no value beyond what's already in the structured schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('drafts in the user's mailbox'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_messages' or 'list_threads', which would require mentioning it specifically returns draft messages rather than all messages or threads.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_messages' and 'get_draft' available, there's no indication whether this is the primary way to retrieve drafts or when to choose it over other listing/fetching tools. The description simply states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it lists messages with filtering. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), pagination behavior (only hinted via pageToken parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (message objects, metadata, etc.), doesn't mention pagination behavior despite having a pageToken parameter, and provides no context about error conditions or limitations. The agent would need to guess about the output format and operational constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional filtering' which aligns with parameters like q and labelIds. However, it doesn't provide additional context, examples, or clarification beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List messages') and resource ('in the user's mailbox'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other list tools like list_drafts or list_threads, which would require specifying it's for general messages rather than specific types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'optional filtering' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_drafts, list_threads, or get_message. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists configs but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination), potential errors, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'S/MIME configs' entail, the return format, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves too much unspecified for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sendAsEmail' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not additive documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Lists') and resource ('S/MIME configs') with specific scope ('for the specified send-as alias'), providing a complete purpose statement. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_smime_info' or 'insert_smime_info', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_smime_info' (which might retrieve a single config) or 'insert_smime_info' (which creates configs). It also lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, offering only basic functional information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List threads' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), or what format the returned threads will have. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a listing operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'thread' versus a 'message', doesn't provide context about the return format, and offers no guidance on usage patterns. For a listing tool in a rich mailbox API with many sibling operations, more contextual information would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('threads in the user's mailbox'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_messages' or 'list_drafts' - it only specifies the resource type without clarifying how threads differ from messages or other mailbox items.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_messages', 'get_thread', 'search_calls_extensive' (from context signals), and 'list_drafts', there's no indication of when to prefer listing threads over other listing operations or when to use query parameters versus separate search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states 'modify' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context, error handling, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the missing operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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, addLabelIds, removeLabelIds) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying label modification, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('modify') and the target ('labels on a message'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'delete_message' or 'trash_message'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'batch_modify_messages' or 'modify_thread', which are closely related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_modify_messages' for multiple messages or 'modify_thread' for thread-level operations. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing message ID or label IDs, or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'modify' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens with invalid label IDs, or any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral aspects unclear for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens when labels are modified (e.g., thread state changes, error conditions, or return values), leaving critical context gaps for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for all three parameters (id, addLabelIds, removeLabelIds). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('modify') and resource ('labels applied to a thread'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'modify_message' or 'update_label', which could also involve label modifications in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'modify_message' and 'update_label' that might handle similar label operations, there's no indication of whether this tool is for thread-specific label management or how it differs from other modification tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'patch' and 'partial update', implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, and 'partial update' adds necessary clarification without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, mutation operation) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage guidelines versus siblings, and any mention of return values or errors. For a patch tool in a rich API context, this leaves critical gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all parameters including enums and nested objects. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Patch') and resource ('an existing label'), with 'partial update' clarifying it's not a full replacement. It distinguishes from 'update_label' (likely full update) and 'create_label' among siblings, though not explicitly. However, it doesn't specify what fields can be patched, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'update_label' (which appears in siblings) or 'create_label'. The description implies it's for partial updates, but doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., needing label ID) or exclusions. Usage is inferred from the name and context, not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Removes' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated data, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and follows the principle of front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place without being overly terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'removing a delegate' means in practical terms, what the expected outcome is, error conditions, or system implications. Given the complexity of delegate management and the lack of structured behavioral information, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'delegateEmail' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema ('Email address of delegate to remove'). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high, but doesn't provide extra value like format examples or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('removes') and target ('the specified delegate'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_delegate' and 'list_delegates' by specifying removal rather than addition or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what system or context delegates belong to (e.g., email delegation system), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., delegate must exist), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from related operations like 'delete_message' or 'trash_message'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone without contextual help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Send an existing draft' implies a mutation operation that transmits a draft, but it doesn't describe side effects (e.g., whether the draft is deleted after sending), permissions required, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error handling, and differentiation from siblings, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Send an existing draft' clearly states the action (send) and resource (draft), with 'existing' distinguishing it from creating a new draft. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'create_draft', which would require more specific context about what makes this tool unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a draft ID), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'send_message' or 'create_draft', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'the mechanics of the raw parameter,' which adds some context about parameter interaction, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether this is a read/write operation, potential side effects (e.g., email delivery, rate limits), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, consisting of two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and a key parameter detail. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more structured by front-loading the main purpose more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an email-sending tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and output expectations, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by noting the mechanics of the 'raw' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or edge cases. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('send an email message') and resource ('to specified recipients'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'send_draft' or 'create_draft', which also involve sending emails, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_draft' or 'create_draft', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It only hints at a parameter mechanic without broader usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 implies a write operation ('Sets') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context, usage scenarios, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters ('sendAsEmail' and 'id') adequately. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between these parameters or their impact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and the resource ('default S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_send_as' or 'insert_smime_info', which might handle related configurations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'insert_smime_info' or 'update_send_as'), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Move to trash') but doesn't explain what 'trash' means operationally (e.g., reversible vs. permanent, retention period, or if it's equivalent to deletion). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a mutation tool. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like reversibility, side effects, or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Move') and resource ('a message to the trash'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_message' or 'trash_thread', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_message' or 'untrash_message'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the message must be in the inbox or if it can be trashed from any folder.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Move to the trash' implies a destructive but potentially reversible action, but the description doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, whether it's reversible (hinting at 'untrash_thread'), what happens to associated messages, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Move a thread to the trash'—making it front-loaded and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like behavioral traits (e.g., reversibility, permissions), usage context versus siblings, and expected outcomes, which are essential for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the thread to move to trash'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Move') and resource ('a thread to the trash'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_thread' (permanent deletion) and 'untrash_thread' (restoration), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives in the description itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_thread' (permanent deletion) or 'trash_message' (for individual messages). It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the thread must exist or be accessible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove from trash' implies a write operation that restores a message, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the message isn't in trash, or what the response looks like. Important behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after untrashing (where the message goes), error conditions, or return values. Given the tool's potential side effects, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target resource ('a message from the trash'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'untrash_thread', but the distinction is implied by the resource type (message vs thread).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_message' (permanent deletion) or 'trash_message' (moving to trash). It also doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a message to already be in the trash, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this restores the thread to its original location, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on failure. It lacks details on mutation impact and response behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'remove from the trash' entails behaviorally (e.g., restoration vs. permanent deletion), potential errors, or return values, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the single parameter 'id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target resource ('a thread from the trash'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'trash_thread' by specifying the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly mention 'untrash_message' as a related sibling for comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'untrash_message' or 'delete_thread', nor does it mention prerequisites such as the thread needing to be in the trash. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Updates' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens when forwarding is disabled. It lacks critical behavioral context for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary information. This is an excellent example of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after the update, whether there's confirmation, error handling, or how to verify changes. The agent lacks critical context needed to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Updates') and resource ('automatic forwarding settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'update_vacation' or 'update_imap' beyond the specific resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, related tools like 'get_auto_forwarding' for checking current settings, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Updates IMAP settings' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting email access), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There is no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a tool that modifies system settings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's details for 'enabled', 'expungeBehavior', and 'maxFolderSize'. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description, which fits here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Updates IMAP settings' clearly states the verb ('Updates') and resource ('IMAP settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_pop' or 'update_auto_forwarding' by specifying IMAP, though it doesn't detail what specific settings are updated beyond the general scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin access), compare to siblings like 'get_imap' for retrieval, or indicate scenarios where updating IMAP settings is appropriate versus other configuration tools. This leaves usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Updates' which implies a mutation, but fails to describe what happens during the update (e.g., partial vs. full updates, error conditions, or side effects). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or what the tool returns, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Updates a send-as alias'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., update mechanics, error handling), usage guidelines, and any mention of return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Updates a send-as alias' clearly states the verb ('Updates') and resource ('send-as alias'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_send_as' (creation) and 'delete_send_as' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives in the description itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the send-as alias must already exist), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'patch_send_as' (also present in the sibling list), leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are immediate or scheduled, what happens to existing settings not mentioned, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies user email settings, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or how it interacts with other email settings. The agent would need to guess about the operation's behavior and outcomes based on minimal information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('update') and resource ('vacation responder settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_vacation' or explain how it differs from other update tools like 'update_auto_forwarding' or 'update_label'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing to first retrieve current settings with 'get_vacation'), no comparison with sibling tools, and no indication of when this operation is appropriate versus other vacation-related actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions sending a verification email, implying a write operation that likely requires permissions and triggers an email, but it doesn't specify required permissions, rate limits, side effects, or what happens after sending (e.g., verification status changes). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, and expected outcomes, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'sendAsEmail' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but the high schema coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sends a verification email') and the target resource ('to the specified send-as alias'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_send_as' or 'update_send_as', which might involve similar send-as operations, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_send_as' or 'update_send_as', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool watches for changes but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify that this creates a persistent subscription (implied by 'watch'), describe the notification format, mention authentication or permission requirements, indicate rate limits, or explain how to stop the watch (requiring stop_mail_watch). This leaves significant gaps for a monitoring tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning a perfect score for this dimension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (persistent monitoring with external integration via Pub/Sub), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like subscription lifecycle, error handling, or response format, leaving the agent with critical gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (topicName, labelIds, labelFilterAction). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, such as explaining how label filtering interacts with change detection or providing examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Watch for changes to the user's mailbox' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('watch') and resource ('user's mailbox'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_messages or get_message that retrieve data rather than monitor changes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from stop_mail_watch, which is its direct counterpart for ending the watch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a Cloud Pub/Sub topic), compare it to stop_mail_watch for ending monitoring, or indicate scenarios where it's preferred over polling tools like list_messages for change detection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Gets'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the config doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or fluff. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving a specific config), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic 'what' but misses behavioral details, usage context, and output information, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both required parameters ('sendAsEmail' and 'id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between these parameters or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and the target resource ('the specified S/MIME config for the specified send-as alias'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_smime_info' or 'set_default_smime_info', which would require more specific language about retrieving a single config by ID rather than listing or setting defaults.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_smime_info' for browsing all configs or 'set_default_smime_info' for default settings. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the thread ID doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks important context about behavior, error handling, and relationship to sibling tools that would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific thread by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_message' or 'list_threads', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_threads' (for multiple threads) or 'get_message' (for individual messages). It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Lists' delegates, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns all delegates or a subset, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 simple purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'delegates' are in this context, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits like pagination or error handling. For a tool with potential complexity in sibling tools, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description mentions 'for the specified account', which hints at context but doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Lists') and resource ('delegates for the specified account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_delegate' or 'remove_delegate', which would require specifying scope or constraints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_delegate' or 'remove_delegate'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether an account must be specified elsewhere, or exclusions for when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Lists') but does not describe output format, pagination, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It does not explain what the output contains (e.g., list format, fields), authentication requirements, or error handling. For a read operation in a complex email management context, more contextual information is needed to guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not add parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline score is 4 for tools with no parameters, as the schema fully covers the input requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Lists') and resource ('forwarding addresses for the specified account'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_forwarding_address' (singular) or 'list_delegates', which might cause confusion in tool selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_forwarding_address' for a specific address or 'list_delegates' for related account permissions. It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. The description is too minimal for a tool with behavioral implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., list format, label properties included) or address behavioral aspects like authentication requirements or error conditions. For a list operation that likely returns structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is correct for this case. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter aspect.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all labels in the user's mailbox'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_label' (which fetches a specific label) or 'create_label' (which creates new labels), missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'list_labels' over 'get_label' for retrieving a single label, or when to use it in conjunction with operations like 'create_label' or 'delete_label'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'Lists' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 simple but potentially stateful operation (listing aliases), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover authentication needs, return format, or error handling, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively in context with its siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add any extra parameter details, which is acceptable given the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Lists') and resource ('send-as aliases for the specified account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_send_as' or 'list_delegates', which could have similar listing functions but for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing account access), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'get_send_as' or 'list_delegates', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'format options' (via includeBodyHtml), but doesn't describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, authentication needs, or the return format. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 specific message by ID') and adds a useful qualifier ('with format options'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieval with optional formatting), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., message object structure), error conditions, or behavioral constraints like rate limiting. For a tool that might return large data (implied by includeBodyHtml), more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (id and includeBodyHtml). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at 'format options,' which aligns with includeBodyHtml, but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a specific message by ID with format options.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('message'), and key constraint ('by ID'), distinguishing it from list_messages. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_draft or get_thread, which are similar retrieval operations for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'by ID' and 'format options,' suggesting this is for retrieving a known message rather than listing or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like list_messages (for bulk retrieval) or get_thread (for thread-level data), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a valid message ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves profile information but doesn't specify what data is included, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or what format the response takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse while conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides basic functionality but lacks important context. It doesn't specify what constitutes a 'Gmail profile' (email address, display name, settings, etc.) or what format the response takes. The absence of annotations means the description should compensate more fully for behavioral transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It could potentially mention that no parameters are needed, but the absence of parameter discussion is reasonable given the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('current user's Gmail profile'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_auto_forwarding' or 'get_vacation' which also retrieve user settings, leaving some ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling 'get_' tools available (like get_auto_forwarding, get_vacation, get_language), there's no indication of what specific user profile information this returns or when it should be preferred over other profile-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the target resource but doesn't explain what vacation responder settings include or what format the response will have. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more context about the response would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's already covered by the schema, maintaining a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('vacation responder settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'update_vacation' or other get_* tools, but it's specific enough to identify the target resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_vacation' or other settings retrieval tools. It simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action is to list filters, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or the format of the returned list, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, effectively conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple list operation. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral context, which could be helpful for an agent to understand the result fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable here, but it could have mentioned implicit context like user authentication, though not required for a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Lists') and resource ('message filters of a Gmail user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_filter' (which retrieves a specific filter) or 'create_filter' (which creates one), missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify if this is for retrieving all filters at once versus using 'get_filter' for a single filter, or mention any prerequisites or contexts for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's function but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies notification settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently communicates the essential information in minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (stopping notifications), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, or relationships with other tools, leaving room for improvement in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since it avoids unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('stop receiving push notifications') and the target resource ('for the given user mailbox'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'watch_mailbox' beyond the opposite action, missing a direct comparison that would warrant a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It lacks any mention of when-not scenarios or how it relates to other tools like 'watch_mailbox', leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'immediately and permanently delete', which implies a destructive, irreversible action, but does not cover other critical aspects such as required permissions, error conditions (e.g., if the message doesn't exist), or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Immediately and permanently delete a message') with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the action and permanence but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or return values, which are important for safe usage. However, the high schema coverage for the single parameter helps offset some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'The ID of the message to delete'. The description does not add further parameter details, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps (there are none). With zero parameters needing extra explanation, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('delete'), the resource ('a message'), and the manner ('immediately and permanently'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'trash_message' (which likely moves to trash rather than permanent deletion) and 'batch_delete_messages' (which handles multiple messages).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trash_message' or 'batch_delete_messages', nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints (e.g., permissions needed, recoverability). It only describes what the tool does, not when it should be applied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gmail-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/faithk7/gmail-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/faithk7/gmail-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gmail-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/faithk7/gmail-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/faithk7/gmail-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/faithk7/gmail-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server