list_emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, ordering, or handling of empty results, which a more thorough description might include.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action, object, and scope, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it specifies what is listed and for whom. It could be improved by mentioning the return format or behavior with no results, but overall it is sufficiently complete for 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description's scope ('for the logged-in user') adds context beyond the empty schema, though no parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ephemeral email addresses') with a scope ('for the logged-in user'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_email or send_email, and the 'ephemeral' qualifier prevents confusion with regular email listing.

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 when to use the tool (to list ephemeral email addresses) but does not explicitly provide alternatives or exclusions. It notes the logged-in user context, which is helpful, but lacks a direct comparison to similar list tools like list_folders.

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