gmail_thread_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly mentions read-onlyness, automatic truncation for large threads with a marker, the risk of attachments exceeding response size limits, and YAML output. This is exemplary transparency beyond what annotations would provide.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and then covering critical caveats. The 'Mirrors omni-dev gmail thread' statement is tangential and the risk phrasing is somewhat elaborate, but every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, safety (read-only), truncation behavior, risk warning, and output format. With no output schema, a bit more detail on the YAML structure might be helpful, but the core usage context is complete and sufficient for correct invocation.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents; both 'account' and 'thread_id' are fully described in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 verb ('Read'), the resource ('full Gmail thread'), and the scope ('including every message in it'). This differentiates it from single-message reads (like gmail_message_read) by emphasizing 'full thread' and 'every message', making the tool's purpose 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 description implies when to use the tool (when the entire conversation is needed) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like gmail_message_read or gmail_search, nor mention when not to use it. The reference to 'omni-dev gmail thread' is a CLI mirror, not a tool-selection guideline.

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