gmail_threads_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and does not reveal behavior such as pagination, response structure, default maxResults, or whether it returns full thread details or just IDs. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a list operation.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is too brief for the complexity of the tool. It lacks structure to convey important details such as scope or behavioral notes. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and the complexity of Gmail threads (e.g., threading, pagination, response format), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what fields are returned, how pagination works, or any limitations. Sibling tools do not compensate for this lack of context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its three parameters (userId, q, maxResults). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'List Gmail threads matching a query', so it does not improve on the schema's clarity. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Gmail threads' with the condition 'matching a query'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like gmail_threads_get (specific thread) and gmail_threads_modify, as well as gmail_messages_list.

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 implies the tool is for listing threads based on a query, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., gmail_messages_list for messages, or gmail_threads_get for a single thread). No when-not-to-use or preferred scenarios are mentioned.

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