gmail_account_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, no parameters, and that no secret is ever returned, plus the config-file source. It stops short of error/edge behavior (e.g., missing config, zero accounts configured), so not a full 5.

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?

A single paragraph that is front-loaded with the resource, then usage, then safety constraints. Dense but every clause earns its place; minor loss for cramming return fields, routing, and CLI parity into one block.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return contents, and it does: name, cached email address, granted scope, and default flag. Combined with the routing guidance and safety statement, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead documents what the returned listing contains (name, cached email, granted scope, default marker), which is useful but not parameter semantics.

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?

States a precise verb and resource (list Gmail accounts from a specific config file) and enumerates the fields it surfaces. It is clearly distinguished from siblings by naming the exact tools whose `account` argument it feeds.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this first to discover valid `account` values before passing one to gmail_search/gmail_message_read/...', giving both the when and the alternatives it enables. Nothing is left to inference for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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