hey_list_label_emails

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

The description includes a key behavioral trait: 'Returns cached results unless force_refresh=true.' This goes beyond the input schema and annotations (which are absent) to inform the agent of caching behavior, helping the agent decide whether to request fresh data. However, it does not disclose other traits like idempotency or authentication needs.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds an important behavioral note. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose and caching, it lacks details about the output format (no output schema provided) and does not mention pagination behavior despite the 'page' parameter. It omits potential constraints on 'label_id' (e.g., must be a valid label ID). For a tool with four parameters, the description is somewhat minimal given the absence of an 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context for 'label_id' by tying it to the purpose, and for 'force_refresh' by explaining caching. No additional meaning is added for 'limit' and 'page', which are adequately described in the schema. Baseline 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 'List emails with a specific label' clearly specifies the action (list), resource (emails), and the unique filter (by label). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling list tools like 'hey_list_collection_emails' and 'hey_list_imbox', which list emails by other criteria.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'hey_list_imbox' or 'hey_search'. It does not specify scenarios where this is the best choice or mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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