List 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. 'List' implies a safe read and it discloses pagination and type filtering, but it says nothing about result ordering, default page size beyond what the schema states, or permission scope. Adequate but thin for an unannotated 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; scope, pagination and filtering all appear before any discussion of details. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

With 100% schema coverage, three optional params and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The only omission is a hint about what the listing returns or its ordering, which is minor for a simple list tool.

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 every parameter (page, type, limit) is already documented with defaults, bounds and the enum. The description only restates 'pagination' and 'inbound/outbound' without adding syntax or behavior beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource ('List emails in your workspace'), which immediately distinguishes it from the single-email siblings (get-email, get-email-meta). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any particular alternative, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by 'list ... with pagination and optional filtering', but there is no statement of when to use this versus get-email or the other read sibling tools, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that this is the bulk-enumeration entry point.

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