outlook_list_emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about how many messages are returned, pagination, folder scope (inbox vs all folders), or what happens if Outlook is not running on the host.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is not padded, though it is arguably under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

For a zero-param, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum define the result set ('recent' = how many? which folder?) and note the read-only nature. What is present is accurate but far too thin to let an agent call the tool with confidence.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-related value is missing or contradicted.

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?

States a clear verb+resource (lists emails) and scopes it to Outlook on Windows, so the basic action is understandable. However, 'recent' is undefined, and the definition does nothing to distinguish it from close siblings such as outlook_search_emails, m365_list_emails, and list_emails in the provided tool set.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer outlook_search_emails or outlook_read_email, and no mention of prerequisites such as an authenticated Outlook session. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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