gmail_list_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the description explicitly states what information is returned. It does not mention auth preconditions or pagination, but for a simple parameterless list tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

One sentence, no filler, with the key message front-loaded. The description fits in the tool name and is immediately understandable.

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, parameterless list tool, the description is practically complete: it states the action, the data returned, and the scoping. There is no output schema, so it reasonably covers the expected return content. Minor omissions like number of aliases or batch behavior are trivial for this use case.

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, so there is no schema semantics for the description to enrich. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds relevant output semantics, so a 4 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured Gmail account aliases') and even states the returned fields (email address, authorization status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_list_labels or gmail_get_profile without needing to consult the schema.

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 intended use is implied: it is the tool to call when you need a list of Gmail account aliases and their auth status. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not name alternatives like gmail_get_profile for single-account details.

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