emails_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. The mention of 'optional filtering' hints at some behavior but lacks specifics.

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 6 words, front-loading the core purpose. There's no wasted language, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic 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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without guessing.

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%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't explain what parameters control this filtering (limit, after, properties, associations, archived) or their purposes. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the bare 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'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like emails_search or emails_get. It specifies 'all emails' but doesn't clarify if this means all emails in the system, for a user, or within a workspace.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like emails_search or emails_get. The description mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't explain what types of filtering are available or when to choose this over more specific search tools.

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