List Proton Scheduled Emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the source ('All Scheduled' IMAP folder via Proton Bridge), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions noted.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding a clarifying detail about the source. No unnecessary words, efficient and clear.

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 zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what the tool does, its source, and its distinction from a sibling tool. No gaps remain.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter details (none needed).

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 action (list), the resource (Proton scheduled emails), and specifically distinguishes from MCP-scheduled emails by noting the source IMAP folder and the exclusion of MCP-scheduled ones. This differentiation is clear given the sibling tool 'list_scheduled_emails'.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to list natively scheduled emails via Proton Mail web/mobile app) and what not to use it for (not MCP-scheduled emails). It implies the alternative (list_scheduled_emails) for MCP-scheduled, providing clear usage guidance.

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