gmail_get_profile

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

The description discloses that the tool is a read operation (verify, return totals) with no side effects. No annotations exist, but the description adequately covers behavioral traits.

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 10-word sentence (no front-loading issue), conveying everything needed without wasted words.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete: it explains both the action (verify connection) and the return (mailbox totals). No gaps remain.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool verifies the Gmail API connection and returns mailbox totals, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gmail_auth_status which likely only checks authentication.

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 implicitly indicates use for checking API connection health, but does not explicitly provide when-not or alternatives. Given no parameters, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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