list_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Recent' is the only behavioral hint and it is undefined (how recent? sorted how?). Nothing is said about pagination behavior, permissions, rate limits, or ordering, which matters for a listing tool with offset/limit parameters.

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?

A single clean sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the thin guidance elsewhere.

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?

With a full output schema, return values need not be explained, and the 100%-covered input schema handles parameters. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to search_emails and read_email, which the description never addresses.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, folder, offset, and unread_only in detail. The description adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (emails) and scopes it to a mailbox folder, so the core action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related siblings search_emails or read_email, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus search_emails (filtered query) or list_folders, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'recent emails from a specific mailbox folder'.

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