list_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned (UIDs and metadata) and implies a read-only 'list' operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. It also does not clarify how 'recent' is determined, which is a behavioral gap.

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 sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds return details, with every phrase conveying 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 a simple list operation with no output schema or annotations, the description gives a solid overview of purpose and return contents. However, it omits an explicit read-only assurance and does not enumerate all metadata fields, which an agent might need for parsing without an output schema.

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?

All three parameters (count, folder, offset) are fully documented in the schema with descriptions, defaults, and max, so the schema provides high coverage. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond 'recent,' which hints at recency ordering but does not elaborate on how count interacts with the list.

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 tool's function: 'List recent emails from a Yahoo Mail folder.' It specifies the resource (emails) and scope (folder), and names the return type (UIDs, metadata). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_email, search_emails, and list_folders.

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 implied usage but no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing. The only cross-reference is in the folder parameter schema ('Use list_folders to see available folders'), not the main description. Agents must infer that listing is the appropriate tool for browsing a folder rather than searching or reading.

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