List Received Emails

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It states that the tool returns paginated metadata and suggests using get-received-email for full content. This adds behavioral context beyond simple listing, though it could mention read-only nature explicitly. Still, it is transparent for a list operation.

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, using markdown headers and bullet points. Every sentence adds value: purpose, exclusions, return structure, and follow-up action. 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 is a simple list with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns (paginated metadata) and how to get full content. It is complete within the context of its simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions paginated metadata but not parameter relationships. Thus, it meets the baseline without exceeding.

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 it lists received emails (inbox) and provides example natural language queries. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools list-emails and list-broadcasts, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 specifies when to use (inbox listing) and when not to (sent emails, broadcasts), and directs to alternative tools (list-emails, list-broadcasts). This provides clear usage guidance.

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