get_recent_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious server-dependent response format (envelope vs. bare array) and the default exclusion of Trash/Spam. It does not address rate limits or authentication, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful and not deducible from the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and uses no filler. Every clause adds value: the scope, the mailboxName option, and the response format note.

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 simple list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key operational details: default scope, optional scoping, and the return format variation. It lacks details about returned email fields, but that is not critical for tool selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount above the schema by providing an example mailboxName value ('inbox') and re-explaining the default scope. The envelope behavior is not directly parameter-related, so no additional parameter semantics are conveyed.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('most recent emails'), and the scope ('across all mailboxes except Trash and Spam'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_email (single email) and search_emails (query-based retrieval) by focusing on recency and default cross-mailbox behavior.

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 when to use this tool (retrieve recent emails, optionally scoped to a mailbox) but does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. The mailboxName guidance is helpful but the tool's relationship to list_emails and search_emails is left implicit.

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