list_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (page-based), parameter semantics, and the exact return structure (messages, total, page, pages, has_more). It also notes 'metadata' to indicate non-full email content, providing useful behavioral context beyond just the tool's name.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the format makes it easy for an agent to parse the essential information 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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and the high-level return keys, which is sufficient for basic usage. However, it does not specify the structure of each message in the 'messages' list (e.g., id, subject, sender), which is a gap given there is no output schema. Still, it is fairly complete for a paginated list tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: mailbox (foldername, default INBOX), page (1-based page number), and page_size (number per page). It adds meaning to the schema by specifying defaults and the 1-based nature of page, which the schema does not provide.

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's function: 'Lista e-post i en mapp med metadata' (list emails in a folder with metadata) with page-based pagination. This specifies the verb (list), resource (emails in a folder), and scope (metadata), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_email (single email) or get_email_headers (headers only).

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?

The description implies usage for listing emails in a folder with pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_emails or get_email_headers. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, so usage context is only implied.

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