list_recent_emails

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

The description discloses that the tool returns only recent emails without bodies, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, since no annotations are provided, it does not explicitly state its side-effect free nature, required authentication, or the exact sorting criteria. This is adequate but could be more 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler.

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 description does not specify what fields are returned in the email list (e.g., subject, sender, timestamp), nor does it mention any pagination or handling of large result sets. Given the lack of an output schema, the description should provide more detail on the response format to be fully complete.

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 schema already provides a description for the only parameter 'limit' (default 5). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 ('List'), the resource ('most recent emails'), and the scope ('inbox'), while also specifying what is excluded ('without bodies'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools 'read_email' (which likely includes bodies) and 'summarize_email' (which would provide a summary).

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 that if bodies are needed, one should use 'read_email' instead, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings. No direct guidance on prerequisites or alternatives is provided beyond the implication from the 'without bodies' qualifier.

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