get_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination behavior (despite a pageToken parameter), default ordering, whether full email content or metadata is returned, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a retrieval 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, focused sentence that avoids redundancy and front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations. While the schema covers parameters, the description does not explain return value structure, pagination, or error behavior. The guidance is adequate but leaves notable gaps for a list-retrieval tool.

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 documents all parameters (limit, filter, folderId, pageToken). The description adds only a general notion of 'filtering' and folder scoping, which maps to existing schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'emails', and the scope 'from a specific mailbox folder' with 'optional filtering'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_email (single email) and search_emails (likely cross-folder search).

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 phrase 'from a specific mailbox folder' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying a folder-scoped listing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use search_emails for cross-folder search'.

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