List recent 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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not explain recency ordering, pagination, permission requirements, or what happens with unfiltered accounts. The description adds little beyond what the name already says.

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 one wasted-word-free sentence and front-loads the core action. It is efficient, though it remains thin enough that most of the burden is carried by the schema.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparce to fully contextualize the tool. It does not define 'recent', specify ordering, describe returned fields, or differentiate this from the many email-related sibling tools. An agent would need to infer significant details.

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?

All parameters have helpful schema descriptions, high schema_description_coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of optional scoping repeats what the schema already states; no additional param meaning or format details are offered.

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 states a clear verb (list) and resource (recent messages), and adds optional account/mailbox scoping. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like search_emails or get_emails_bath, so it falls just short of strong differentiation.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_emails or get_thread. The phrase 'optimaly scoped' describes parameter behavior rather than usage context, and no exclusion or precondition is offered.

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