outlook_list_messages

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions it lists 'recent emails' but does not specify sorting order, default count, effects of unread_only, or what happens if folder doesn't exist. It also doesn't state that it is read-only or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 conveys the primary purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool is simple (3 optional params, no nested objects, no required params), the description covers the main purpose. It doesn't detail return structure because an output schema exists. However, it lacks details on parameter behaviors and usage conditions, so it is not fully complete but sufficiently adequate for straightforward 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'folder' (e.g., inbox, sentitems) but does not explain 'top' or 'unread_only' beyond the schema defaults. The folder examples add some value, but overall parameters remain weakly described, leaving the agent to infer semantics from names.

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 the resource 'emails from an Outlook mail folder', with examples of folders. It distinguishes from siblings like outlook_get_message (retrieve single) and outlook_list_folders (list folders), though it doesn't explicitly name them. It is specific enough for most agents.

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 usage context (e.g., listing inbox messages) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like outlook_search_messages. The folder parameter hints at use cases, but there is no mention of 'when not to use'. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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