gmail_list_drafts

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as ordering, pagination behavior, or response characteristics.

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 text is short but not effectively concise: the opening sentence is a fragment that adds little value, while the useful limit explanation is buried in an Args section. The description is under-specified rather than tightly scoped.

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 simple single-parameter schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is minimally usable for a straightforward call. Still, it lacks an explicit statement of the operation and any context for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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?

The description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explaining that limit means 'Maximum drafts to return' and adding the upper bound of 100. This gives an agent important information not present in the schema, though the default of 20 is left to 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 is a noun phrase, 'Drafts waiting in the mailbox,' with no explicit verb stating what the tool does. The action 'list' must be inferred entirely from the tool name, and the phrase largely restates the name with redundant context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_get_draft, gmail_search, or gmail_create_draft. There is no stated context, exclusion, or comparison to siblings.

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