maket_gmail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and does an excellent job. It reveals OAuth flow, token restoration, read-body truncation to 3000 chars, search cap of 50, image handling (validated/optimized/thumbnailed/metadata row) vs non-image handling (untouched in <DATA_DIR>/attachments), and the 'never sends' policy for drafts.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence 'When to use' summary followed by a compact action table. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. The action-table format makes the multi-action tool easy to scan.

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, the description explains what each action returns (search lists subject/from/date, read returns headers/truncated body/attachments listing) and where files land. It covers prerequisites, side effects, and limitations (capped results, truncated body), making the tool fully comprehensible.

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?

Although the schema already has 100% parameter coverage, the description adds cross-action context and fallback semantics (e.g., to falls back to doc.meta.emailTo, with_read defaults to false, fetch_attachment requires a prior read call). It also clarifies which parameters apply to which action, making it far more useful than schema descriptions alone.

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 opens with a specific 'When to use' statement listing exactly the operations (connect Gmail, search/read mail, download attachments, create drafts). Each action in the table has a clear verb+resource (connect, search, read, fetch_attachment, draft), distinguishing it from sibling tools like maket_pdf or maket_preview.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool and prerequisites: 'All actions except connect require an active OAuth session — call connect first.' Each action is described with its specific conditions (e.g., 'Requires with_read=true at connect time'), and the draft action clarifies that Maket never sends, so the user reviews and sends from Gmail.

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