outlook_list_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by explaining the concise parameter's effect on token usage and folder naming conventions. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or handle pagination details, though the name implies reading.

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?

Efficient, front-loaded with purpose, and no filler sentences. The three paragraphs are well-organized and each adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, and many parameters, but lacks output description and explanation of pagination parameters (skip, cursor). Given 10 parameters and no output schema, more detail on return format would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description explains 7 of 10 parameters (folder, unread_only, from_address, after, before, classification, concise) but omits count, skip, and cursor. The example uses count but does not describe it.

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 it lists messages in one folder with structured filters, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like outlook_search_mail and outlook_list_inbox_delta.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (folder-scoped browsing) and when to use alternatives (outlook_search_mail for full-text search, outlook_list_inbox_delta for polling), including cost efficiency. Also provides an example.

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