List Emails in Folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's main contribution is contextual: results are newest first, pagination details, and shown fields. No contradictions. Adds value but annotations cover safety.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second describes output, and the third specifies order. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the fields shown (sender, subject, date, read status), which is good. However, it does not describe the overall return structure (e.g., array, total count). Adequate for a simple list tool but could be richer.

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 hints at 'specific folder' for the folder parameter and 'pagination' for limit/offset, but does not explain the values, defaults, or min/max constraints. Adequate but not detailed.

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 emails), the resource (specific folder), the output fields (sender, subject, date, read status), and ordering (newest first). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like proton_search_emails and proton_read_email.

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 usage for browsing emails in a folder with pagination, which is distinct from searching or reading single emails. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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