gmail_back

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior—closing the current view and returning to the mail list—but does not mention edge cases such as what happens when nothing is open, whether unsaved state is affected, or whether the action is a no-op in some contexts.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action and result efficiently.

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 navigation tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke it correctly. It could be stronger with edge-case or usage guidance, but it covers the essential behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the optional to_inbox parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which makes the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb and scope: close the open conversation, dialog, or full view and return to the mail list. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like gmail_open and gmail_list by describing a back/navigation action rather than opening or listing mail.

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?

Usage is implied by 'open conversation' and 'return to the mail list', but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to use instead. It lacks alternatives such as gmail_list or ui_global_action.

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