assistantmail_list_recipients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only listing behavior and an account scope, but it does not disclose response shape, pagination, whether apiKey must be supplied, or how authentication is established. Basic transparency is present, but richer behavioral detail is missing.

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 entire description is one concise sentence with no filler, and the core action and scope are front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description covers the primary behavior, but without an output schema it should say more about what the returned recipient list contains and how authentication/apiKey is handled. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the apiKey parameter's role, optionality, or relationship to the authenticated account. The property name and regex pattern provide limited self-evident semantics, so this is not a 1, but the definition still fails to meaningfully document the parameter.

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 ('Lists') with a concrete resource ('approved/pending recipients') and scope ('for the authenticated account'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools for mailboxes and messages, and the only other recipient tools are add/remove operations.

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 description implies the usage context (inspect the recipient list for the current account) but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over add_recipient/remove_recipient or any other alternative. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions.

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