gmail_get_draft

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. "Read" communicates a non-mutating operation, and "output feeds directly back into gmail_update_draft" adds a useful behavioral contract. However, it does not disclose details like output shape, required permissions, or side effects, leaving some burden unmet.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary operation and followed by a workflow hint. Every word earns its place, and nothing is redundant or bloated.

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?

For a simple read tool with only two required parameters trough no output schema or annotations, the description conveys the essential use case and a downstream integration. It stops short of explaining where draftId comes from or what the returned draft object contains, but the update-draft tie-in compensates reasonably.

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 schema documents account but leaves draftId undescribed, and the description adds no direct parameter semantics. The phrase "one Gmail draft" weakly reinforces that draftId identifies a single draft, and account is already well-described as an alias. This is adequate but not compensatory for the draftId 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?

"Read one Gmail draft" uses a specific verb and resource and clearly indicates this is a single-draft operation, distinguishing it from gmail_list_drafts and gmail_read_message. The statement also signals that it targets drafts specifically. The explicit tie to gmail_update_draft strengthens purpose by showing its role in a workflow.

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 a clear usage context: call this to retrieve a draft so its output can be passed into gmail_update_draft. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like gmail_list_drafts, but the intended workflow is evident.

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