List Google Chat conversations

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds value beyond them: it enumerates the entity types returned (spaces, group chats, DMs) and gives the concrete id formats. It does not mention any auth prerequisite (the sibling sign_in suggests one) or pagination behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the scope and returned shape front-loaded before the id-format detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 doing the work of describing the { id, name } return shape is important and it delivers. The only gap is the unstated dependency on being signed in, which matters for a first-call, id-producing tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The id-format note is arguably more relevant to downstream calls than to this tool's own inputs.

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 specific verb and resource ('List every space, group chat and direct message') and discloses the exact scope (Google Chat sidebar), which cleanly separates it from read_messages, read_thread and search. It also pins down the return shape as { id, name }.

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?

'Ids ... are what the other tools take' tells the agent this is the entry point for the id-driven siblings, which is real usage context. It stops short of an explicit rule such as 'use this when you don't already have an id; use search to find a space by name', so there is no stated exclusion against search.

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