list_email_aliases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that the tool tries known API shapes and reports attempted endpoints if none work, which is valuable unexpected behavior to disclose. It does not detail auth requirements or failure handling beyond endpoint reporting, but the core behavioral trait is covered.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a brief note on KYC and endpoint discovery, and a clear parameter explanation. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without waste.

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?

The tool is simple, has one optional boolean parameter, an output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose, KYC prerequisites, unusual API-shape discovery behavior, and the raw output flag. It is complete for practical invocation, though it does not explicitly mention authentication state or the exact shape of the readable summary.

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 0% and the schema only provides a boolean named 'raw' with a default. The description adds the essential semantic: raw returns raw JSON instead of a readable summary. This fully explains the single optional parameter, compensating for the absent schema description.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('your YesWeHack email aliases'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools, which concern credentials, programs, reports, and user info rather than aliases.

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 clear contextual guidance: KYC verification is required for alias usage, and the tool compensates for an undocumented UI endpoint by trying known API shapes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but none of the siblings serve the same purpose, so this omission is not significant.

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