list_emails

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It mentions inbox and Apple Mail but does not disclose if the operation is read-only, destructive, or side effects. Lacks details on return format, count, ordering, or pagination.

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 single sentence but truncated, making it incomplete and not concise. Every part should be intentional; the cut-off harms structure.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should fully explain the tool. It does not due to truncation, leaving the agent without complete guidance.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description does not need to add param info, but it should explain output behavior. The truncated text fails to fully leverage the opportunity, hence a 3.

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 mentions 'see or triage their inbox on this Mac (Apple Mail)', giving a specific verb+resource+scope. However, the description is truncated, reducing clarity. Differentiates somewhat from siblings like search_emails or read_email.

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?

States 'use this when the user wants to see or triage their inbox', giving a clear context for use. But no explicit when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, and the truncation leaves ambiguity.

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