export_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the scope options, default values, safety cap on max_emails, and return type. However, it does not mention authentication or whether the tool modifies any state.

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, with a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all parameters and mentions the return type. It is complete for an export tool, addressing backup and analysis needs.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explains all 7 parameters, providing examples, defaults, roles, and constraints (e.g., subject_keyword required for single_email). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 'Export emails to files for backup or analysis,' using a specific verb (export) and resource (emails to files). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like compose or search by focusing on file export.

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 provides parameter details that imply usage (e.g., single_email vs entire_mailbox), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools.

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