gmail.read_message

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 does not disclose whether reading affects read status, auth requirements, or other side effects. It only states what is returned, which is minimal.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome. It conveys the necessary information without wasted words.

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

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

For a simple read tool with an output schema, the description is adequate to convey the core function. However, it misses behavioral context like auth scopes and potential limitations (e.g., body truncation), making it minimally complete but not fully rich.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond their names. 'account' and 'message_id' are not defined; the description only clarifies the tool's purpose, not the expected parameter values or formats.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('Gmail message'), and specifies content ('subject/from/snippet/body'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like gmail.list_messages, which lists multiple messages, and gmail.send_message, which sends.

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 clearly implies when to use: when a single Gmail message's content is needed. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool list provides context, and the 'single' scoping is explicit.

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