gmail_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It claims to read the 'full body', but the input schema includes a max_chars parameter (default 20000) that truncates the content, contradicting 'full body'. This important behavioral trait is not disclosed.

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 waste, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It could include essential details like the max_chars limitation without being verbose.

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 no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the truncation behavior, output format, or any prerequisites. A read tool with these features requires more information to be fully usable.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It only mentions 'id' (message_id), ignoring account and the critical max_chars parameter (which limits the body). No explanation of how parameters affect behavior.

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 'one message's full body', and it references the source ('by the id from gmail_search'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_search (list) and gmail_send (send). However, it could be more precise about what 'full body' includes (e.g., attachments, headers).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implicitly suggests use after gmail_search, but lacks when-not conditions or prerequisites. No mention of alternatives.

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