message-get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' signals a read-only operation and 'flexible field selection' indicates configurable output, but it does not disclose details like whether fetching marks the message as read or how omitted fields behave. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action, resource, key constraint, and a meaningful capability all in one concise clause.

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 straightforward retrieval tool with a fully documented input schema and an output schema available, the description plus schema covers the essential calling context. It lacks explicit mention of authentication or preconditions, but these are not unusual omissions for a simple read tool.

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 four parameters. The description's phrase 'flexible field selection' aligns with the fields parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (Get), names a concrete resource (Gmail message), and identifies the selection mechanism (by ID). It also adds the differentiator 'flexible field selection,' which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like message-search or messages-export-csv.

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 the use case: retrieve a single Gmail message when an ID is known. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'by ID' qualifier provides sufficient context against the sibling tools.

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