gmail_threads_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions listing threads with a query but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'matching a query' entails (e.g., search syntax). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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's complexity (list/search operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving gaps that could hinder correct invocation. More context is needed for a tool with these characteristics.

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 fully documents all three parameters (userId, q, maxResults). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying query usage, which is already covered in the schema's description for 'q'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List') and resource ('Gmail threads'), with the qualifier 'matching a query' indicating filtering capability. It distinguishes from sibling gmail_messages_list by specifying threads rather than messages, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with gmail_threads_get. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from similar tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_messages_list or gmail_threads_get. The description implies usage for searching threads but offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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