gemini_chat_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list of saved conversations' with no details on ordering, filtering, pagination, or response structure, which is insufficient for a full understanding of behavior.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified, which limits its usefulness despite being well-structured.

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 that this is a simple zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate for basic understanding. Yet it lacks any contextual cues about when to use it or what it returns beyond 'saved conversations', making it incomplete for an agent to fully leverage it.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. With no parameters to explain, the baseline score of 4 applies, as the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented parameters.

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 '保存中の conversation 一覧。' clearly indicates this tool returns a list of saved conversations, which is a specific resource. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as gemini_chat_history.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gemini_chat_history or gemini_chat_new, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.

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