List tags, correspondents and other objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to restate read-only behavior. It adds value by disclosing the return shape (ids and document counts) and broadening scope to saved views, users, groups, mail accounts, mail rules, workflows and share links, which the title alone doesn't convey.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The primary purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded, and the extra object-type coverage is confined to a single closing sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden; it says the tools provides ids and document counts, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It could add a note about pagination or rate limits, but those are partially covered by the all_pages parameter description and annotations.

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 67%, covering type, ordering, all_pages, and name_contains. The description reinforces the type enum by naming tags, correspondents, document types, storage paths, and custom fields, but it does't add meaningful semantics for page or page_size beyond their schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the objects documents are filed under, with their ids and document counts.' It clearly distinguishes itself from document-search and document-mutation siblings by positioning itself as the id-lookup tool.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to call it: 'Call this first when you need an id for a tag, correspondent, document type, storage path or custom field — the document tools take ids, not names.' This also implies when not to use it, since document tools should be used once you have the id.

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