get_gmail_labels

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral detail; it states the tool lists labels but does not disclose whether it is read-only, response format, or potential error conditions.

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?

Single sentence efficiently communicates core purpose with no extraneous 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 1-param tool without output schema, the description is adequate but does not specify return value structure (e.g., label IDs and names), limiting completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (parameter has description), so baseline is 3; the tool description adds no parameter info beyond the schema, but the schema's description is incomplete ('Choose from: '), yet this dimension focuses on the tool description's addition.

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 'List all available Gmail labels for the user' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (Gmail labels) with clear scope, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on messages, drafts, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; while no competing label tools exist, the description omits context such as prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or cases where modifying labels might be needed.

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