Get Gmail Thread Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context about return shape (string by default, dict when include_analysis=True) and clarifies that the default preserves the existing string return shape, which is beyond annotation data.

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?

Two sentences: the first clearly states the core purpose, the second explains an optional feature and its benefit. No redundant wording, well-front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description covers the essential aspects: thread retrieval, all messages, optional analysis, and default return shape. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's functionality without ambiguity.

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 is 3. The description enriches the include_analysis parameter by explaining the structured ownership analysis (last sender, ball-in-court verdict), which is not fully captured in the schema. It also clarifies body_format behavior via the schema, and the description adds value by describing the default return shape.

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 states the tool retrieves complete Gmail thread content including all messages, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_gmail_message_content by focusing on the whole thread, and mentions optional structured ownership analysis as an added feature.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (to retrieve full thread content) and hints at a reason to prefer it over alternatives: by enabling include_analysis, callers avoid re-parsing or making a second call. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the guidance is useful.

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