gmail_auth_status

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

The description is highly transparent about both what the tool does and what it does not do. It explicitly states that it does not call the Gmail API, does not return sensitive tokens (client secret, refresh token, access token), and cannot confirm refresh token acceptance. Since there are no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly.

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 information-dense but well organized. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the core functionality and return values, the second explicitly lists exclusions (tokens not returned), and the third clarifies limitations and read-only nature. It avoids fluff and uses a logical flow.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (presence flags and granted scope) and what it does not return (tokens), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output shape. It also addresses edge cases like refresh token expiration, making the description robust for real-world usage.

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 only parameter 'account' is fully described in the schema, and the description adds valuable context: it explains the default resolution behavior, mentions the ambient CLI flag, and suggests using gmail_account_list to discover valid names. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent clear guidance on how to use the parameter correctly.

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 the tool's purpose: reporting whether Gmail OAuth2 credentials are configured and which scope was granted. It explicitly names the resource (Gmail) and the action (report status), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clear usage guidance by contrasting this tool with the CLI version, explaining that it does not call the Gmail API and cannot verify refresh token validity. It also implies when to use this tool (for a quick local check) versus the CLI (for actual verification). However, it does not explicitly compare with other Gmail sibling tools, though that is less critical given the tool's specific diagnostic focus.

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