Lista mejl i en mapp

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

Annotations only declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false). The description goes far beyond that: it warns that subject/name are untrusted data, explains which fields get invisible characters stripped versus rendered as [U+XXXX], tells the agent not to reply to such addresses, and precisely defines when suspicious_content is set. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then safety, then Args and Returns in a scannable layout. The security paragraph is long but every clause conveys a distinct rule, so it earns its space.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (mailbox, messages, total, page, pages, has_more) and the important note that a UID is only valid within its mailbox. Combined with documented params and safety rules, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all three parameters with defaults, the 1-based page semantics, the 1–100 page_size bound, and the edge case that one page past the end returns an empty list. Only minor format details (e.g. valid mailbox naming) are left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (emails) plus the scope (in a folder), with metadata and page-based pagination called out. An agent can tell it apart from get_email or list_mailboxes by the resource, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with search_emails, the closest sibling.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_emails or get_email_headers. Usage is only implicit from the verb. The security handling text is valuable but is not tool-selection guidance.

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