list_emails

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list', implying a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, data consumption, authentication needs, or potential side effects. The lack of detail forces the agent to guess default behavior.

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 very short (one sentence), which is typically desirable. However, it omits essential details like the expected output format, pagination, or filter specifics. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, making it less useful. It could integrate contextual hints 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 the low complexity (no parameters) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how this tool differs from 'search_emails' or 'list_emails' (if any difference). There is no output schema, so the agent has no idea what the response looks like. The tool feels underdefined.

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 zero parameters, yet the description mentions 'optional filters'. This mismatch could mislead an agent into thinking filters are available. With 100% schema coverage (trivially), the description adds confusion rather than clarity. It fails to explain how to use the apparent filters or why they are absent.

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 'List emails from Mail.app inbox', specifying the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_emails' or 'outlook_list_emails', which have similar purposes. The mention of 'optional filters' is vague without defining what filters are available.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_emails' (which likely includes filters) or 'outlook_list_emails'. The description does not indicate prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use, leaving the agent without decision support.

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