List Email Rules

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that rules are executed in sequence order and labels the tool as read-only, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sections for Args and Returns, uses an emoji for visual appeal, and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary information.

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 straightforward list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, parameter, and return fields. It lacks context on obtaining the account_id or error scenarios, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations and output schema, it is mostly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by specifying 'account_id: Microsoft account ID' in the Args section. This adds basic meaning but lacks details such as format, source, or constraints. The explanation is minimal but sufficient for a simple string parameter.

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 'List all inbox message rules' with a specific verb and resource. It uses emoji and mentions read-only nature, clearly indicating it's a list operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like emailrules_get or emailrules_create, though the action is distinct.

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 includes 'safe for unsupervised use' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as emailrules_get for a specific rule or emailrules_create for adding rules. No exclusions or context for appropriate use cases.

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