gmail_profile

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

The description is straightforward but does not disclose behavioral details such as required authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects (though likely none). Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility, yet it only states what it returns, lacking context on prerequisite permissions or invocation effects.

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 with parenthetical enumeration, wasting no words. It is perfectly front-loaded and efficient for such a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and returns only a few well-known fields, the description is largely complete. It could mention that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, but for a profile getter this is sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because none exist. Per the guidelines for 0 parameters, a baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('Gmail profile info'), and explicitly lists the fields returned (email, messages total, threads total, history ID). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like gmail_list or gmail_read, which deal with messages rather than profile metadata.

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 usage for retrieving basic account information but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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