gmail_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'read', implying a non-destructive operation, but it does not confirm whether it modifies anything, what permissions are needed, or any rate limits. This is insufficient.

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 sentence of 10 words, directly stating the essential information. No wasted words, and the key action and resource are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the format of the returned content (e.g., includes body, attachments) or mention error conditions. It fails to provide sufficient context for a complete understanding of the tool's behavior.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter; the description adds no additional semantic value beyond stating 'by its message ID', which is already clear from the schema's parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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

The description clearly states the action (Read), resource (full content of a specific email), and the identifier (message ID). It distinguishes itself from siblings like gmail_list, gmail_send, and gmail_search by focusing on reading a single email.

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 implies that the user needs a message ID to read, which likely comes from gmail_list or gmail_search, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention any alternatives or prerequisites. Some guidance is missed.

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