gmail_scheduled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is helpful, but the description says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether results are truncated at the limit — details that matter for a listing tool.

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 short sentences with zero waste: the first defines the operation, the second links results to the downstream cancel flow. Both are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and its relation to cancellation. It could be more complete by noting that output is a list of message rows and that results are capped by limit.

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 both parameters (limit, query) are already documented in the schema, including the fact that query is wrapped as 'in:scheduled <query>'. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or defaults beyond that.

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 ('List') and resource ('mail scheduled to be sent later') and names the 'Scheduled' folder, which is more precise than the tool name alone. It also points to the sibling it feeds (gmail.cancel_scheduled), though it doesn't contrast against general listing tools like gmail_list or gmail_search.

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 purpose implies when to use it (to view scheduled sends), and the note that results 'feed gmail.cancel_scheduled' clarifies the downstream workflow. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over gmail_list/gmail_search or what to do if the list is empty.

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