get_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details default values, case-insensitive search, partial match for sender, a performance note about include_body defaulting to false, and return format (list with pagination). This is comprehensive, though auth requirements or side effects are omitted (acceptable for a read operation).

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is detailed but every sentence adds value, no fluff. The purpose is stated first, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides all necessary context: purpose, all parameters with behavior, return type, and multiple examples. An agent can correctly invoke the tool with this information alone.

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 and does add meaning for all 6 parameters. It explains limit, offset, box_type with enumerated values, search_query (case-insensitive), sender_filter (partial match, case-insensitive), and include_body with a performance note. Examples further clarify usage.

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 tool retrieves messages from a specified mailbox with filtering options. It lists specific parameters and provides multiple examples, making the purpose unambiguous. Sibling tools are distinctly different (attachments, courses, etc.), so no confusion.

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 implicitly indicates usage for retrieving messages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or comparisons with siblings are provided, which could be helpful for an AI agent.

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