epost_list_storage_documents

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It reveals behavioral differences between API and browser fallback (descriptions vs. date/tag). However, it does not state read-only nature, permissions, or pagination/limits. Adds some value but missing depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Could be more structured by explicitly listing parameters, but it is concise and readable.

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 three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description omits default behavior (listing all documents when folder_id omitted) and does not explain the limit parameter's purpose. The distinction between API and browser fallback is helpful but 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 67%. The description adds meaning for folder_id and scroll_all beyond schema, but limit (missing schema description) remains unexplained. Two of three parameters benefit; one is overlooked.

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 documents in Storage, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes between API and browser fallback behaviors but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like epost_list_storage or epost_list_letters.

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 parameter-level guidance (use folder_id for one folder, scroll_all for browser path) but lacks high-level when-to-use advice compared to siblings like epost_search or epost_list_storage.

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