sendcraft_list_emails

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 implies a read-only operation (list) and mentions 'delivery status' as part of the result, which is useful. However, the phrase 'recently sent' is ambiguous—it could imply a default filter or ordering, and it may conflict with the schema's ability to list scheduled/cancelled emails. It does not explicitly state that the operation is safe/non-mutating, though that is implied.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage context. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 list tool with 4 optional parameters, good schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It provides use cases and result highlights (delivery status). However, it could be more precise about what 'recently sent' means and could mention that the tool supports pagination and filtering via parameters, which are already in the schema. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents. It obliquely references use cases (e.g., find a specific email) that could map to status/campaign filters, but it does not explain parameter behavior directly.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List recently sent emails with delivery status.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_email (single email) and list_campaigns (campaigns). The qualifier 'with delivery status' adds specificity.

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 three clear use cases: 'audit what was sent, find a specific email, or monitor deliverability.' This gives the agent context for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., get_email for a specific email or get_stats for deliverability metrics) or when not to use it.

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