list_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool lists messages, without mentioning side effects, return format, pagination, or authentication requirements. The existence of an output schema reduces some need for return detail, but the description adds no transparency beyond the basic operation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and the most important parameter constraint. It contains no filler and is easy 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?

The description adequately covers the folder parameter but ignores pagination (top/skip) and account scoping (account_id). Given that the tool is simple and has an output schema, the lack of such details is a notable gap, especially for multi-account use cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying the folder parameter (allowed standard names and folder_id from list_folders). However, it offers no explanation for top, skip, or account_id, leaving those parameters semantically underdefined.

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 the verb 'Elenca' (lists) and specifies the resource as messages of a folder, with explicit allowed folder names and a reference to list_folders. It clearly identifies the tool's function and scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_unread or search_mail.

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?

It provides clear usage context by enumerating which folder values are valid (inbox, sent, drafts, spam, deleted, or a folder_id from list_folders). This effectively guides when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.

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