gmail_list_drafts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing "Read-only" is largely redundant. The one genuine addition is the word "identifiers," which tells the agent the payload is lightweight ID references — useful since there is no output schema — but permissions, rate limits, and ordering are unaddressed.

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 operation and scope. The trailing "Read-only." is a minor waste given the annotations already assert it, but nothing else is padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back (identifiers) and why one would call it. Missing only edge-case behavior, e.g. what an empty draft list looks like or whether results are ordered by recency.

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% and the single max_results parameter carries its own description with default and min/max bounds. The description adds no further meaning about truncation behavior or whether a total count is surfaced, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists Gmail draft identifiers") and pins down the granularity of the return — IDs, not full draft bodies — which distinguishes it from gmail_get_draft and gmail_list_templates. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"for human review before sending" implies a pre-send inspection workflow, which is a plausible usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and doesn't route the agent to gmail_get_draft when full draft content is needed instead of just identifiers.

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