list_project_emails

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

The description only states the action 'List', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, pagination, or side effects. With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for transparency, which it fails to deliver beyond the basic verb.

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 sentence with no superfluous words, achieving high conciseness. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informative content; still, it earns a high score for efficient wording given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With one parameter and an output schema available (context signals), the description should at least hint at what the output contains (e.g., email addresses or messages). It falls short, providing no contextual framing, making the tool feel incomplete despite its simplicity.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'project_id' parameter at all. No additional meaning is added beyond what the input schema provides, leaving the parameter's role and format entirely to the schema.

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') and the resource ('emails associated with a project'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_email_to_project' (mutation) and 'get_contact_emails' (contact-specific) by focusing on project-level listing, though sibling differentiation is implicit.

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. For example, it does not contrast with 'get_contact_emails' or clarify that it returns all project emails rather than contact-specific ones. The description gives no context for appropriate usage.

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