list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by specifying 'all configured' (no filtering) and 'authentication/health status,' which reveals what the tool reports. It does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, but 'List' implies a read-only operation.

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 that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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, output schema, or annotations, the description provides adequate information about what the tool returns (accounts and their authentication/health status). It is slightly vague on the exact return structure, but sufficient for a configuration listing operation.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details but also needs none.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'all configured Gmail inbox accounts' and adds scope 'authentication/health status.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_emails or begin_account_auth.

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 by stating what it lists, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as begin_account_auth or list_blocked_senders. There is no 'when' or 'when not' guidance.

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