list_recent_emails

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it discloses ordering, default folder selection, and the output contract that returned identifiers are suitable for read_email. It omits pagination/error behavior, but for a simple non-destructive listing tool the core behavior is 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The main behavior and key output detail are front-loaded, and every clause adds value.

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?

The tool is simple, all parameters are optional and schema-documented, and the description tells the agent what to do with the returned identifiers despite the lack of an output schema. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor room for stronger sibling differentiation.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the INBOX default and the usable output identifiers but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 operation — list recent emails — with folder scope, default INBOX, and newest-first ordering. The returned identifiers and reference to read_email clarify the tool's role and help distinguish it from search_emails.

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?

Gives clear context for use: browsing recent emails in a folder, defaulting to INBOX, and feeding results into read_email. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is readily inferable.

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