export_emails

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses key behaviors: it exports to files, provides a safety cap (max_emails: 1000), defaults for format and directory, and clarifies required parameters for scopes. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 a structured docstring with a brief sentence, then bulleted args, and a returns line. It is concise but includes the 'User Preferences' line which may be extraneous. Overall, it is well-organized and easy to scan.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, two scopes) and the presence of an output schema (which likely details the return), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter meanings, defaults, constraints, and a high-level return description. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: account (with examples), scope (enum values and constraint), subject_keyword (required for single_email), mailbox (default), save_directory (default), format (enum, default), max_emails (purpose and default). This makes all parameters understandable.

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 'Export emails to files for backup or analysis', specifying the verb (export), resource (emails), and purpose (backup or analysis). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compose_email, delete_emails, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context such as 'Use this instead of list_inbox_emails when you need file output' or 'Not for immediate viewing'.

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