list_gmail_drafts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'most recent' but does not specify ordering direction (e.g., descending by date) or other behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether drafts are modified by listing. It is moderately transparent for a simple read 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 clear sentence of 10 words, with the verb and resource upfront. No unnecessary information, earning its place without any fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It could improve by explicitly noting that drafts are ordered by newest, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the basic functionality.

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% with a single parameter 'max_results' fully described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool lists the most recent Gmail drafts for the authenticated user. The verb 'Lists' and resource 'Gmail drafts' are specific, and the scope is well-defined. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_gmail_draft and document tools by focusing on listing drafts.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or situations where other tools might be more appropriate. The implied usage is for listing drafts, but no explicit context is provided.

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