emails_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('List all emails') without mentioning pagination behavior (though 'limit' and 'after' parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how filtering parameters work. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on the description.

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 for 5 parameters, the description provides minimal help. It mentions 'optional filtering' which hints at some parameters, but doesn't explain what the 5 specific parameters (limit, after, properties, associations, archived) do or how they relate to filtering. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'List all emails with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('emails'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like emails_search. It doesn't specify whether this lists ALL emails in the system or just those accessible to the current user/context.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like emails_search. The description mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't explain what filtering capabilities exist or how they compare to the search functionality in emails_search.

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