microsoft_list_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List Outlook messages' but does not mention whether it returns all messages or just unread, whether pagination is supported, any rate limits, or required permissions. The simplicity might imply a read-only operation, but this is not explicit.

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 concise with one sentence stating the purpose followed by a parameter list. No extraneous information. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks details about the response format (though an output schema exists, it is not shown), pagination behavior, and whether special folder names are expected. The parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'OData filter expression' could use an example). It is adequate for a basic list tool but incomplete for full usability.

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 provides brief clarifications: 'Mailbox folder name' for folder, 'Max messages to return' for top, and 'OData filter expression' for filter. These add basic meaning beyond the schema defaults but are terse and do not explain filter syntax or optional behavior.

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 it lists Outlook messages from the connected Microsoft 365 mailbox. The verb 'list' and resource 'Outlook messages' are specific. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like gmail_list_emails or microsoft_list_channel_messages which operate on different email services or message types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to other Microsoft listing tools such as microsoft_list_chat_messages or microsoft_list_drive_files. The description simply lists parameters without context.

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