list_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose pagination and unread/sender/folder filtering, which are key behaviors for a ler tool. It dose not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe ordering/limitations, but listing by nature implies no mutation.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key filter capabilities. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes meaning.

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 5-parameter list tool with no annotations, the description is minimal but not severely incomplete: pagination and filters are covered, and an output schema exists to describe return values. It lacks usage routing and explicit side-effect clarity, so it is adequate with clear gaps.

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?

Scheam description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps partialy to three of five parameters: unread_only ('未读'), from_emails ('发件人'), and folder ('文件夹'), but it does not explain page or page_size beyond the generic word '分页'. The paramter names and defaults are fairly self-explanatory, keeping this at baseline.

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 and resource ('分页列出邮件' — list emails in pages) and names the main filtering dimensions. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as search_emails or list_drafts, so it stops short of full 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?

Ther is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of search_emails, list_drafts, or other siblings. No exclusions, preequisites, or alternative routing are mentioned; the filters imply a browsing use case but do not state it explicitly.

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