List inbox threads or batch-fetch (legacy)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that list mode returns lightweight metadata, full mode batch-loads and auto-drafts (token-heavy), and that nothing is sent automatically. However, it doesn't cover rate limits or authentication requirements.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the recommended mode and provides specific, actionable advice without unnecessary verbiage.

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?

While the description covers usage scenarios well, it leaves several parameters undocumented and does not address multi-account handling (given siblings like multi_gmail_fetch). Given 9 parameters and no output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should explain all 9 parameters. It only covers mode, queryMode, and implies query behavior, leaving maxResults, includeLatestBody, saveGmailDrafts, writeMarkdownFile, accountAlias, and chatScope unexplained.

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 inbox threads or batch-fetches with specific output details (subject, snippet, threadId). It distinguishes between list and full modes, and differentiates from sibling 'get_thread' which retrieves full email bodies.

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 provides explicit guidance: recommend default list mode, advise against full mode for normal inbox review, specify when to use queryMode=raw vs inbox, and direct users to call get_thread for full bodies. It also warns against loading multiple full threads.

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