gmail_get_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning full email content with a plain text preference, but doesn't address critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the message_id is invalid. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 very concise with a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, but it might be overly brief, risking under-specification. It efficiently states the tool's function without unnecessary details.

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's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It doesn't explain the return format beyond 'full email content,' though the output schema may cover that. Without annotations, it should provide more behavioral context, such as authentication needs or error cases, to be fully adequate.

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 description adds no information about the message_id parameter beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 0%, but with only one parameter, the baseline is higher. The description doesn't explain what message_id is, how to obtain it, or its format, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. However, the single parameter is straightforward, keeping it at a minimal viable level.

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's purpose as returning full email content with a preference for plain text, which is clear but vague about what 'full email content' includes. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like gmail_get_thread or summarize_email, which also retrieve email-related content. The description provides a basic verb+resource but lacks specificity about scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to choose gmail_get_message over gmail_get_thread, gmail_search, or summarize_email, nor does it indicate prerequisites like needing a specific message_id. Usage is implied by the tool name but not explained.

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