email_forwarders_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds no information beyond the action conveyed by the tool name itself, such as that listing is read-only, whether hidden/system forwarders are included, pagination behavior, or any authentication/impersonation implications.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the core verb and resource. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length is acceptable and no significant clutter is present.

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 two-parameter list operation, the description provides the essential 'what' and 'scope', and an output schema exists for return values. However, it leaves the impersonation parameter's behavioral impact unclear and does not tie the tool into the surrounding email tool family.

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. It merely repeats the parameter titles, with 'domain: Domain' adding no meaning and 'impersonate: Owning user' adding only a slight clarification. It does not explain acceptable formats, default behavior when impersonate is omitted, or how impersonation affects the list.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('forwarders') scoped to 'a domain'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like email_forwarder_create and email_forwarder_delete, which perform different operations on the same resource.

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 the tool: whenever a user needs to see the forwarders configured on a given domain. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as email_forwarder_create/delete for management actions, leaving the routing mostly implicit.

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