get_recent_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the return includes envelope headers and unread status, but it does not explicitly state whether retrieving emails marks them as read or define 'most recent' ordering. This is a moderate disclosure for a read-style tool.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, containing no filler or redundant information. It is concise and immediately scannable.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core return values (envelope headers and unread status) and the schema covers defaults. It could specify how 'most recent' is sorted, but the description is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 fully describes both parameters (limit default 20, folder default INBOX), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level details beyond 'mailbox folder', matching the existing 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 states a specific action ('Retrieve'), a resource ('emails from a mailbox folder'), and the output contents ('envelope headers and unread status'). This differentiates it from siblings like get_email_content (full content) and search_emails (query-based retrieval).

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 (when recent emails are needed) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. An agent gets no guidance on choosing between this and search_emails or get_email_content beyond what is implied.

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