list_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description claims 'list sent emails' but the direction parameter can filter inbound or outbound, making the statement misleading. It fails to mention that results are paginated, ordered, or how the API handles limits. This inaccuracy reduces trust and transparency.

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 concise at two sentences but lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or clear separation of purpose from fields). It is not overly verbose, but the misleading 'sent emails' phrase costs efficiency. Could be slightly improved without adding length.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination behavior (after cursor, limit), default direction, or how to handle the mailbox parameter when the project has one mailbox. The return format is only hinted ('Shows message ID, template...') without details on order or structure. More context is needed for reliable agent usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameters are already well-documented. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 lists emails from a mailbox and enumerates returned fields (message ID, template, recipient, status, timestamp). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_email (single email) and send_email. However, it inaccurately specifies 'sent emails' when the direction parameter allows both inbound and outbound, which slightly undermines clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_email for individual messages, list_mailboxes for mailbox metadata). Missing context on pagination (after cursor, limit), default behavior, or filtering with the direction parameter. The description does not help the agent decide when to include or omit optional parameters.

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