assistantmail_list_recipients

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is read-only by implication ('Lists') but does not mention pagination, response format, permission requirements, or any side effects. A somewhat useful scope detail ('approved/pending') is present, but broader behavioral context 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 description is a single concise sentence that places the main action and object up front. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 relatively simple: one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema. The description conveys the core purpose and scope with minimal ambiguity, making it minimally viable. However, it does not explain the response shape or apiKey handling, which would be needed for full self-sufficiency.

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, its format, or how it relates to the authenticated account beyond a vague implication. Since the schema carries no semantic weight, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly identifies the verb ('Lists'), resource ('recipients'), and scope ('for the authenticated account'), including the specific statuses 'approved/pending'. It is distinct from siblings like add_recipient and remove_recipient, though it does not explicitly call out which sibling it is not.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_recipient or remove_recipient. The intended usage is only implied by the verb and resource, so the agent must infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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