gmail_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read the full content' without revealing traits like whether the email is marked as read, authentication requirements, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 simple read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., valid messageId) or any limitations, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 input schema covers both parameters (email and messageId) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds 'full content' but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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' and the resource 'full content of a specific email by ID', distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_read_thread (reads a thread) and gmail_get_attachment (gets an attachment).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The purpose is obvious from context, but the description itself lacks usage guidelines.

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