list_email_attachments

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

Without annotations, the description partially carries the burden. It states it lists attachments and checks up to 'max_results' emails, but does not disclose whether it modifies data, requires specific permissions, or searches all mailboxes versus inbox. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose. The 'Args:' section is structured but somewhat redundant with the schema; however, it provides examples. Every sentence contributes, though some verbosity exists.

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?

With three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main functionality and return value. It could mention limitations like only checking first matching emails, but remains adequate for a relatively simple tool.

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 0%, so the description adds essential meaning. It explains 'account' with examples, 'subject_keyword' as keyword search, and 'max_results' with default behavior. This adds value beyond the raw 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 attachments for emails matching a subject keyword,' specifying the verb (list) and resource (attachments) with a clear condition. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'save_email_attachment' which has a different purpose.

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 retrieving attachment details based on subject keyword, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_email_attachment' or 'search_emails'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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