list_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that query uses native Gmail operators or IMAP TEXT search, that recipients is OR-combined, and warns about performance for large mailboxes with since_days. This is good transparency, though it does not specify the return format (but output schema exists).

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 brief but comprehensive, with a clean Args list structure. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and parameter explanations are succinct.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary context: parameter meanings, defaults, usage recommendations, and cross-tool references (list_email_accounts). It is complete for making informed tool selection.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), making the description essential. It adds detailed meaning for all 7 parameters: account says to use list_email_accounts, recipients explains OR-combined addresses/domains, since_days warns about performance. This goes well beyond the schema titles.

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 starts with 'List messages in a folder.' which clearly states the core function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_email (reads a single email) and search_emails_by_sender (searches by sender), making its purpose immediately clear.

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 explicit usage guidance for parameters like account (use list_email_accounts), default INBOX, and a strong recommendation for since_days with recipient queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_emails_by_sender), missing some exclusion logic.

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