gmail_list_send_as

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'list', which implies read-only behavior, but fails to disclose any specifics about permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe. A simple listing is generally safe, but the description omits important context.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary words.

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 list tool with no parameters, the description provides the essential information (what it lists). However, without an output schema, it could include more details about the returned data (e.g., fields like display name, address). Still, it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter info because none exist. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'Gmail send-as aliases', with a parenthetical explanation of what they are. This distinguishes it from siblings like gmail_get_send_as (get a specific one) and gmail_create_send_as (create a new one).

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 only states the tool's action, with no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like gmail_get_send_as or gmail_create_send_as. No exclusions or context for selection are provided.

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