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. 'List all emails' suggests a read-only operation, but the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all emails' means in terms of scope (user-specific, workspace-wide, etc.).

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, with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness - it's arguably too concise given the tool's complexity.

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 what the tool returns, how filtering works, or provide any context about the email listing behavior. The minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective tool use.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none have descriptions in the schema. The description only vaguely mentions 'optional filtering' without explaining what any specific parameters do. It doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, leaving all 5 parameters semantically unclear.

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 states the verb ('List') and resource ('emails'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'emails_search' or 'emails_get', which appear to serve related but potentially different functions for email retrieval.

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 mentions 'optional filtering' which implies some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'emails_search' or 'emails_get'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with sibling tools.

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