gmail_threads_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not contradict them and the read-only safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the core action, such as pagination, default when q is omitted, or ordering.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the resource, action, and filtering behavior in a way that is easy to scan.

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 simple list tool, the description is mostly sufficient, especially with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations. It still omits the relationship to gmail_messages_list and any note about default behavior when no query is provided, and there is no output schema describing the returned thread shape.

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 the schema already documents q, userId, and maxResults. The description does not add any parameter-level nuance beyond repeating that the tool matches a query, which keeps it at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('Gmail threads'), and a filtering condition ('matching a query'), so an agent can tell this is the thread-listing operation. It is clearly distinct from gmail_threads_get and gmail_threads_modify, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like gmail_messages_list or gmail_threads_get, and no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical query patterns. An agent must infer the intended use from the tool name alone.

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