List Gmail Attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact return structure (attachmentId, filename, mimeType, size), which is especially useful given there is no output schema. It does not contradict annotations.

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 compact: a one-sentence purpose followed by a concise args list and a return example. Every part serves a purpose; the return block is valuable because no output schema exists. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return format. It compensates for the lack of an output schema by including a detailed return example. Minor gaps such as behavior on empty message or ordering are not critical for a basic list operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats the parameter details nearly verbatim without adding extra context or nuances, providing minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'List all attachments in a specific Gmail message,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'gmail_get_attachment' (which gets a single attachment) and 'gmail_list_messages' (which lists messages rather than attachments).

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 clear context: it is for listing attachments within a specific message. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over similar tools.

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