List Scheduled Emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it lists emails in specific statuses and sorts by scheduledAt ascending. This goes beyond the annotation without contradiction, providing useful detail for agent decision-making.

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: two sentences that communicate purpose, scope, and sorting order without any filler. It is front-loaded and every word provides necessary 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 tool has an output schema (so return values are documented), no parameters, and annotations providing safety, the description fully covers the remaining context: what is listed (scheduled emails with statuses) and how it is ordered. 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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Baseline for high coverage is 3, but since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The description adds value by clarifying what the list contains (statuses and sort order), which is more than the schema alone provides.

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 specific verbs ('List') and clearly defines the resource ('scheduled emails') with explicit statuses (pending, sent, failed, cancelled) and sorting order ('sorted by scheduledAt ascending'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'cancel_scheduled_email' and 'list_pending_reminders' by specifying the scope of 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 clearly states what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_emails' or 'list_pending_reminders'). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated, and no when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.

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