List Proton Scheduled Emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the context that it reads the 'All Scheduled' IMAP folder exposed by Proton Bridge, which is consistent with a read-only operation and provides operational detail beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, both necessary: first states purpose and exclusions, second states data source. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, data source, and sibling differentiation. It could mention any default ordering or limit, but for a simple list tool with one optional parameter, it is sufficient.

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 only parameter (account_id) is fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'List' and specifies the resource as 'emails natively scheduled via Proton Mail web/mobile app'. It explicitly distinguishes from 'MCP-scheduled emails', referencing the sibling tool list_scheduled_emails. The specific IMAP folder source is also mentioned.

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 a clear contrast between native scheduled emails and MCP-scheduled emails, guiding the agent to choose this tool versus list_scheduled_emails. However, it does not explicitly state 'when to use' or 'when not to use' beyond that distinction.

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