gmail_list_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately states the tool lists accounts and their authentication status, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, prerequisites, or performance implications. The behavioral transparency is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose without any extraneous information. Every word is necessary, and the structure is highly efficient.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys that it lists accounts with authentication status. It is complete for such a simple tool, though it could optionally mention the response format or potential errors.

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, so the input schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter information.

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 tool lists all configured Gmail accounts and their authentication status. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('configured Gmail accounts'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gmail_switch_account and gmail_authenticate.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. However, as a simple listing tool, usage is implied by the name and description. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context makes it straightforward.

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