List Of Emails

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: read-only nature, common HTTP error statuses, project_id defaulting, and the API endpoint. However, the contradiction between 'list' and 'single JSON object' is a transparency flaw that prevents a higher score.

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 dense but organized, covering purpose, usage, defaults, errors, and endpoint in a few sentences. Each sentence contributes information, though the contradictory return-type statement slightly hurts clarity.

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 covers errors, read-only behavior, and the default value, but it misdescribes the return value (single object instead of a list) and does not mention pagination despite page/per_page parameters. With no output schema, the description should clarify the return shape more accurately.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config, which is not in the schema. It also lists required parameters, though redundant.

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 opens with 'Return a list of emails,' which suggests a list operation, but then says 'Use this when you already know which email you want' and 'Returns a single JSON object describing the email,' contradicting the list semantics. This makes the tool's actual purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading.

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 a usage scenario ('when you already know which email you want') but this seems inappropriate for a list tool and does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The project_id default note adds some guidance, but overall the when-to-use direction is unclear and not tied to sibling tools.

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