Rechercher des emails

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

The core behavior is disclosed: this is a listing/search operation scoped to a folder with an optional filter. With no annotations present, the description carries the burden, and it does not explicitly mention read-only status, returned fields, sorting, or pagination. This is a moderate gap for a low-risk read tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the resource, scope, and optional filter efficiently.

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 description gives enough to invoke the tool correctly: folder scope and optional filter. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what fields are returned, pagination behavior, or default sorting. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (query, folder, maxResults). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 states a specific verb ('Liste') and resource ('emails d'un dossier Exchange'), and adds the optional AQS filter. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_email (single email), send_email, 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 makes the usage context clear: list emails in a specified Exchange folder, optionally filtered by AQS. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_email, get_attachments, or list_folders, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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