list_inbox_emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool performs a read operation (listing emails), supports optional filtering, and notes that include_content is slower. This adequately discloses behavioral traits without contradictions.

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 well-structured with an introductory sentence, a replacement note, and bulleted parameter explanations. It is concise enough to convey key info without excessive verbosity, though the Args section could be slightly more compact.

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 parameter count (5) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: parameter usage, return format (text or json), and intent. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but these are reasonable omissions for a list tool with optional max_emails.

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%, but the description's Args section explains each parameter in detail, including purpose, default behavior, and examples (e.g., account: 'Gmail', 'Work'). This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions and adds significant meaning.

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 tool lists inbox emails across all accounts or a specific account, with a specific verb 'list' and resource 'emails'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_emails by focusing on inbox listing and explicitly mentions it replaces the get_recent_emails tool.

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 clear context on when to use the tool, including the replacement note for get_recent_emails and guidance on using account + max_emails for recent emails from a single account. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where other tools like search_emails would be more appropriate.

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