gmail_list_threads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states a read operation but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, default max results, or that it returns a list of thread summaries. The schema includes these details, but the description adds no extra 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 short sentence, no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though could be front-loaded with more critical details like output format.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should indicate what is returned (e.g., list of thread IDs, snippet) to help the agent. It also lacks mention of pagination despite the pageToken parameter. The description is incomplete for a listing tool with 5 parameters.

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?

All five parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value by only echoing 'optional search query'. The description does not clarify parameter relationships or usage patterns beyond 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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (Gmail threads) with an optional search query. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like gmail_list (lists messages) or gmail_search, which could cause confusion.

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 implies usage context via 'optional search query' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for filtering by label or pagination). No when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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