listGmailThreads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Retrieves') without revealing whether it is purely read-only, what data is returned (e.g., thread summaries vs. full content), pagination behavior, or default exclusions like spam/trash. Minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to clearly stating the tool's function.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return type as 'list of email threads/conversations' but lacks details about thread content, pagination, or default filtering behavior. The input schema covers parameters well, but the overall description is adequate yet not fully complete for a tool with no structured return specification.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; all parameters are already well-documented with descriptions and defaults.

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 ('Retrieves') and names the resource ('email threads/conversations from the user's Gmail account'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like readGmailThread or sendGmailEmail. The scope and optional filtering are also present.

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 usage for listing and filtering threads but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like readGmailThread or listGmailLabels. No exclusions or when-not situations are mentioned.

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