list_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the item shape (id, subject, body_preview, msgtype, publish_date, un_read, events[]) and the semantics of pagination and the archived flag. It stops short of stating sorting order, error behavior, or authentication requirements, but the read-only nature is clearly implied by 'Return'.

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 front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence, then uses compact lines for fields and arguments. There is no redundant text or restating of the tool name.

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?

For a simple two-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return field names, pagination offset, archived behavior, and the path to full details. Minor gaps remain around sort order and the meaning of msgtype/events[], but these are not critical for invocation.

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 schema provides only titles and defaults, so the description's Args section is the sole source of meaning. It defines rows_to_skip as 'Pagination offset' and archived as 'Include archived items', which is clear and sufficient for both optional parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Return the main health feed') and gives concrete content examples like exam results and appointment confirmations. It also distinguishes itself from get_message by directing users there for full details, making clear this tool returns feed summaries.

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?

It explicitly tells users to use get_message(id) when they need full detail or attachment URIs, establishing a clear division of labor. It also documents pagination usage through rows_to_skip, though it does not explicitly contrast list_timeline with list_notifications.

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