get_emails

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent. Description adds that it uses live IMAP, defaults to newest first, and includes a warning about snippet content from untrusted senders. It does not mention any destructive behavior or dependencies, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences of high-level purpose followed by usage guidance and alternatives. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., list of emails with fields). However, it hints at snippets and pagination. For a tool with 6 parameters, it covers the key usage aspects, but a brief note on returned fields would improve completeness.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining default sorting, pagination options (offset vs beforeUid), and the trade-offs of includeSnippet. This goes beyond the schema.

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 'Fetch emails from a mailbox folder via live IMAP' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_emails and search_indexed_emails by mentioning when to prefer them.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use to browse or paginate recent messages in a specific folder.' Also provides alternatives: 'Prefer search_emails to filter by sender, subject, or date. Prefer search_indexed_emails for fast repeated queries...'

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