list_tracked_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recent' and 'open status', but doesn't clarify what 'recent' means (e.g., time range), whether results are paginated, if authentication is required, or any rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence: 'List recent tracked emails with their open status.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recent' entails, the format of returned emails, or any behavioral traits like pagination. For a tool that lists data, more context is needed to fully understand its usage and output.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'limit' fully documented in the input schema (type, default, max). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying 'recent' as a parameter. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'List recent tracked emails with their open status.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('tracked emails'), and scope ('recent'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_tracking_status' (likely for a single email) and 'send_tracked_email' (a write operation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond the verb, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'check_tracking_status' or 'send_tracked_email', nor does it specify prerequisites, such as needing tracked emails to exist. The context is implied ('recent'), but no explicit usage rules are given.

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