chaprola_email_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether it affects email state, ordering, pagination, or rate limits. Only the phrase 'authenticated user's mailbox' hints at auth requirements, which is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It clearly states the action and object, earning its place without waste.

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 is simple, with two parameters fully described in the schema. However, the description lacks any behavioral context (e.g., default ordering, whether all emails are returned, or how it relates to email_read). Without annotations or an output schema, it is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent regarding expected behavior.

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 baseline applies. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (limit, before), but it doesn't need to since the schema is complete.

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') with a clear resource ('emails') and scope ('authenticated user's mailbox'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like email_read (single email), email_send, and email_delete by clearly indicating a listing operation.

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 implies usage (when you want to list emails) but does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It relies on the tool name and semantics to infer context.

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