gmail_get_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('return all messages') but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely accesses user 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (fetching thread data in Gmail), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on authentication, error cases, or sibling differentiation, leaving room for improvement despite the output schema reducing some burden.

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 has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'thread_id' undocumented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information (e.g., what a thread ID is, where to find it, or format examples). However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any semantic context reduces it to 3, as the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('return') and resource ('all messages in a thread'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gmail_get_message' (which fetches a single message) or 'gmail_search' (which searches across threads), missing explicit sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a thread ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'gmail_get_message' for single messages or 'gmail_search' for finding threads, leaving usage context unclear.

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