list_emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions default values and limits (e.g., 'default: 10, max: 50') and describes the return format, but fails to address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior for a list operation.

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 well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, and Example, making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the example could be more integrated to enhance flow.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters and return values adequately, but lacks context on behavioral traits like error handling or performance limits, leaving gaps in overall understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose, default values, and constraints (e.g., 'folder: Mail folder to list from (default: INBOX)', 'limit: Maximum number of emails to return (default: 10, max: 50)'), providing clear semantics beyond the bare 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 the tool's purpose: 'List emails from the specified folder.' It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('emails'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_emails' or 'read_email', which limits the score to 4 instead of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_emails' or 'read_email'. It includes an example but lacks explicit context or exclusions for tool selection, offering minimal usage direction.

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