list_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: chronological ordering, the exact fields returned, and the default folder behavior. It does not mention errors, auth, or read-safety, but for a listing operation this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence leads with the action and ordering, the second covers return fields and default behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 the essential return values and default folder behavior, which is sufficient for a simple list operation with no output schema. It lacks explicit guidance on alternatives and edge cases like invalid folders or pagination, but the core invocation context is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the default-folder context and output fields but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for limit or only_unread.

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 verb and resource: 'Listet E-Mails in einem Ordner auf'. It also specifies ordering ('neueste zuerst') and the returned fields (UID, Betreff, Absender, Datum, Lesestatus, Anhänge), which distinguishes this from siblings like get_email and search_emails.

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 context by explaining the default INBOX folder and optional folder override, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like search_emails or get_email. No exclusions or branch conditions are provided.

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