list_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait beyond structured data — results are ordered newest-first — but says nothing about pagination behavior, permissions, or how many messages a page contains despite top/skip existing.

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?

Two short lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The terseness is a symptom of missing content rather than of padding, so conciseness itself is not the problem.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a paginated list tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the missing top/skip/unread_only semantics are a real gap. An agent cannot tell how to page through a large mailbox.

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 for four parameters and only addresses one. The folder guidance is genuinely valuable, listing well-known names (inbox, drafts, sentitems, archive, deleteditems, junkemail) that are absent from the schema, but top, skip, and unread_only remain entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lista meddelanden i en mapp") plus a meaningful ordering guarantee ("nyast först"). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_messages, so an agent must infer that this is a plain folder listing rather than a query tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus search_messages (for filtered/query retrieval) or read_message (for content). The only guidance is implicit in the phrase "i en mapp", leaving the agent to guess at the alternative.

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