list_unread

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully documents the return structure (email object fields) and parameter constraints (1-100 range). However, lacks safety context (auth requirements, rate limits) and behavior on empty inbox.

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?

Uses docstring format with Args/Returns sections. First sentence is strong and front-loaded. Returns section may be redundant if rich output schema exists, but structure is logical and information density is high with minimal waste.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter list operation. Describes the parameter fully and outlines return fields. Lacks completeness on behavioral edge cases and sibling differentiation, which would elevate it for an email tool with multiple query options.

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 coverage is 0% (max_results lacks description), but description fully compensates by documenting the parameter semantics, valid range (1-100), and default value (20).

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 specific verb (List) + resource (unread emails) + scope (from inbox). Clearly implies read-only operation distinct from mutation siblings like 'archive' and 'mark_as_read', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the 'search' sibling, which could also retrieve unread emails. No preconditions or filtering guidance provided.

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