m365_mail_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safe, read-only nature. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default result ordering, or potential rate limits. It merely restates the action, missing the opportunity to add value beyond the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function efficiently. Every word earns its place, and there is no extraneous information or repetition. It is clear and direct without being overly verbose.

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?

With no output schema and limited description, the tool lacks clarity about the return format or what fields are included in the email list. It also does not mention the 'top' parameter's pagination behavior, which is a meaningful operational detail. Although the context signals indicate a simple list operation, the absence of return-value documentation and usage guidance leaves the description incomplete.

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 100%, so the parameter descriptions in the schema fully document 'top', 'filter', 'folder', and 'search'. The description repeats 'folder, filter, and search' but does not add new semantic details about how these parameters interact or their default values. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema covers parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('emails from your mailbox'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It mentions optional folder, filter, and search, which helps scope the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling tool m365_mail_search, which may also perform search-based listing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as m365_mail_read or m365_mail_search. There is no indication of appropriate use cases, exclusion criteria, or why one would choose this over sibling tools. The minimal 'list emails' phrasing leaves the user without decision support.

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