gmail_list_attachments

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the result is limited to filenames, types, and sizes, implying metadata-only inspection, but it does not describe how attachments are returned or any limitations.

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 two short, front-loaded statements plus an Args line, with no filler or repetition of schema or annotation information. Every sentence contributes either purpose or parameter provenance.

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, read-only, single-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, this description is nearly complete: purpose, output scope, and parameter source are all present. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation, but nothing critical is missing for invoking it correctly.

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 zero schema description coverage, the description must carry the semantic load for message_id. 'Message id from gmail_search' gives the needed provenance and makes the parameter actionable, which is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 identifies the tool's function as reporting attachment metadata (filenames, types, sizes) for a specific message, distinguishing it from siblings like gmail_get_message and gmail_search. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list', but the intent is unambiguous.

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 provides useful context that message_id should come from gmail_search, indicating a search-then-inspect workflow. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as gmail_get_message, nor any exclusions.

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