emails_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'list all emails' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral context for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. While it may be too brief for adequate documentation, it scores perfectly on conciseness as every word contributes to the meaning without redundancy.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how the filtering parameters work. The minimal description doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use this tool effectively given its complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description only mentions 'optional filtering' in general terms without explaining what specific parameters are available (limit, after, properties, associations, archived) or their purposes. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in 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?

The description 'List all emails with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('emails'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'emails_search' or 'emails_get', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'emails_search' or 'emails_get'. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't specify what types of filtering are available or when this tool is preferred over other listing/search tools. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative references are provided.

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