get_emails

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

The read-only annotation is supplemented with useful context: live IMAP, newest-first default, and sortByUid behavior. It does not mention rate limits or return format, but for a read-only tool this is acceptable. The description adds value beyond the annotation.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage context and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage, and alternatives. It does not explicitly state that the return is a list of emails, but 'fetch emails' and 'browse/paginate' imply it. This is a minor gap, not a critical omission.

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 parameters. The description mentions sortByUid behavior, but that is redundant with the schema. It does not add meaningful new parameter semantics, 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 clearly states it fetches emails from a mailbox folder via live IMAP, with default ordering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting its focus on browsing/paginating a folder and explicitly naming alternatives for filtering and fast repeated queries.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use context ('browse or paginate recent messages in a specific folder') and when-not-to-use alternatives ('Prefer search_emails...', 'Prefer search_indexed_emails...'), giving clear decision guidance.

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