boj_comms_gmail

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 operations like 'send' and 'manage labels' which imply mutations, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'authenticate' entails. The description is too vague to inform the agent about key behavioral traits beyond basic functionality.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient phrase that front-loads the core purpose. It lists key operations without unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating authentication from other operations). Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for a multi-operation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple operations including mutations like 'send'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover authentication requirements, error cases, or response formats, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly in context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing operation types (send, read, search, manage labels) which aligns with the 'operation' enum, but doesn't provide additional semantics like format details or constraints beyond what's in 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.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Gmail operations — send, read, search emails, manage labels', which specifies the verb 'operations' and resource 'Gmail' with concrete examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calendar or GitHub tools by focusing on email functionality, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping email tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists operations but doesn't indicate prerequisites (like authentication), when to choose specific operations, or how it compares to other communication tools like 'boj_comms_calendar'. Usage is implied through the operation list, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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