list_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the core function and the optional filter, but does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, what response format to expect, or whether 'sent' includes bounced/failed emails. The term 'sent' is ambiguous in scope.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and filter option. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 simple listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It covers the essential purpose and an optional parameter, but lacks details about return value structure, ordering, pagination, or any side effects, which could be important for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 already describes both parameters with clear definitions (limit default/max, status enum values). The description adds nothing beyond the schema—it only mentions the status filter without elaborating on its syntax or meaning, and does not reference the limit parameter. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 action (list), the resource (sent emails), and the domain (from Tratto), with an optional status filter. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'send_email', which performs a write operation.

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 implies that this tool is for listing sent emails, and the contrast with 'send_email' is evident through the verbs 'list' vs. 'send'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the alternative, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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