get_recent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recent' which hints at recency filtering, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, how emails are ordered, whether it returns full content or headers, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It communicates the essential purpose without wasting words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but leaves gaps around return format, ordering, and the exact meaning of 'recent.' It is adequate for a straightforward list tool, but not as complete as it could be given the lack of annotations or output schema.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (count and folder) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that the folder is selectable. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('recent emails from specified folder'), making it easy to understand the core action. It implies a scoped retrieval from a specific folder, which loosely distinguishes it from search_emails or read_email, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_emails or read_email. The context is only implied by the phrase 'recent emails' and the existence of sibling tools, but there is no direct recommendation or exclusion.

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