emails_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filtering' which hints at some functionality, but doesn't describe important behaviors like pagination (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters), whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, or what the output format looks like. For a list tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - just 6 words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While perhaps too brief for a tool with 5 parameters, every word earns its place and there's no redundant information. The structure is simple but effective for such a short description.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how pagination works, what filtering options exist, or how this differs from emails_search. For a list operation with multiple filtering parameters, users need more context to use this tool effectively.

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 and 5 parameters, the description 'with optional filtering' provides minimal semantic context. It hints that filtering exists but doesn't explain what parameters control filtering, what 'properties' and 'associations' mean, or how 'archived' affects results. The description adds very little value beyond what the bare parameter names in the schema already suggest.

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 'List all emails with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('emails'), but it's somewhat vague about scope ('all emails' could mean different things) and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like emails_search or emails_get. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what constitutes 'all emails' in this context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like emails_search or emails_get. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with sibling tools. The phrase 'with optional filtering' hints at some usage context but doesn't provide actionable guidance for tool selection.

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