List Gmail Attachments

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so description's burden is lower. Description accurately reflects a read operation but adds no extra behavioral context like data freshness or auth requirements. The return structure is included, but that's output information.

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?

Description is efficient but includes redundant Args section that repeats the schema. The Returns section adds value since no output schema exists. Overall structure is clear and front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Simple tool with 2 parameters, complete annotations, and no output schema. Description provides purpose and return structure, which is sufficient. However, missing usage guidelines prevents full completeness for an AI agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description's Args section duplicates parameter info from the schema without adding new meaning (e.g., 'message_id' and 'response_format'). No clarification of values beyond what enum/default provides.

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?

Description clearly states 'List all attachments in a specific Gmail message', using specific verb 'list' and resource 'attachments in a Gmail message'. This distinguishes it from siblings like gmail_get_attachment (which retrieves a specific attachment) and gmail_list_messages (which lists messages).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need message_id from gmail_list_messages) or conditions like being read-only. Lacks any directive on appropriate context.

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