gmail_get_draft

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to cover basic safety. It adds some context by specifying that the returned draft is 'in full' and includes the body, but it does not disclose other behaviors such as error conditions or draft-specific formatting. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 minimal and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a single argument note. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, and every sentence contributes either to goal clarity or parameter sourcing.

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 one-parameter read operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential call pattern and the nature of the returned object. Its main gap is the lack of explicit comparison to sibling tools, but this is minor because the getter's role is already evident from the name and description.

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?

The schema provides only a bare string type with a title, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. The note that draft_id comes from gmail_list_drafts gives the agent concrete sourcing guidance beyond the schema and clarifies that the parameter is an existing draft ID, not an arbitrary string.

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 clarifies that the tool returns a single draft, and 'including its body' adds meaningful specificity about the returned content. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling getters like gmail_get_message, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Draft id from gmail_list_drafts' implies that the agent should call gmail_list_drafts first to obtain a valid ID, which is useful but implicit context. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as gmail_get_message or gmail_get_thread, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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