list_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It outlines parameters and defaults but does not disclose side effects (none expected for a read operation), error behavior, rate limits, or any constraints beyond param types. The fact that it returns 'summaries' rather than full email content is noted but not detailed.

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 compact, well-structured docstring listing parameters after a clear one-line purpose. Every sentence is functional and there is no redundancy. It could be slightly improved by grouping related parameters or adding a brief usage example.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits any mention of pagination behavior (despite having offset and limit) and does not clarify what constitutes a 'summary'. For a tool with 6 parameters and no nested objects, this is adequate but slightly lacking.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each of the 6 parameters with brief meaning and defaults (e.g., 'folder: Folder to list emails from (default: INBOX)'). This adds valuable context beyond the raw schema types, though it does not describe the output format or parameter constraints.

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 'List email summaries from a folder', specifying the verb 'list' and resource 'email summaries'. The context of sibling tools like get_email and send_email helps distinguish it, though the meaning of 'summaries' is not elaborated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_email for a single email or list_folders for folder hierarchy. The description lacks context about typical use cases or exclusions.

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