List enabled APIs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it is nearly silent. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, that results are paginated (despite a pageToken parameter), how the project is resolved, or what auth/permissions are required.

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 wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing usage and behavioral detail rather than a sign 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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. But with pagination implied by pageToken and a whole family of API-management siblings, it leaves the agent to infer scope and result shape on its own.

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 coverage is 50%: projectId is documented in the schema (including the GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT default), but pageToken is undocumented in both places. The phrase 'for a project' loosely reinforces projectId but adds no syntax or format detail, so the schema is doing the real work.

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?

States a specific verb (lists) and resource (APIs/services) with the scoping qualifier 'currently enabled', which implicitly distinguishes it from gcp_search_available_apis and gcp_get_api_status. However, it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary from the word 'enabled' alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. With siblings like gcp_get_api_status and gcp_search_available_apis in the same family, the description should say when to reach for this list versus those, but it offers none.

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