qobrix_list_email_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns { data: [...], pagination: ... }') and the expandable associations (Include: ...), which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't mention read-only status, default ordering, pagination behavior beyond the structure, or any potential error conditions. For a list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and workflow context, the second specifies the return shape, and the third explains the include options and companions. No filler, no repetition of schema information, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 rich schema (all params documented) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect in return. It explains the use case (activity tracking, campaigns, contact timeline) and the meaningful relationships in the include field. It could mention parent/child scoping (e.g., whether it's for a single contact or all contacts), but the description is sufficiently complete for a list tool in this sibling ecosystem.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description adds some semantic context by explaining what several include associations mean (e.g., ContactContacts = recipient/sender, Properties = listing references), but this is marginal value beyond the schema's already-thorough parameter descriptions. The baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with 'List email messages' — a specific verb and resource — and immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like qobrix_list_calls and qobrix_list_meetings by framing it within the Activity Tracking / Follow-up workflow. It clearly positions email messages as touchpoints in the Lead-Contact Lifecycle, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from other list tools.

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 clear situational context: 'part of the Activity Tracking / Follow-up workflow and marketing campaigns' and explicitly recommends pairing it with qobrix_list_calls and qobrix_list_meetings for a complete engagement timeline. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like qobrix_get_email_message, but the companion guidance is a strong usage signal.

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