ecm_list_pieces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the return value is only a summary, not full piece details, and that media URLs are excluded. The 'List' verb makes the read-only intent obvious, though it does not explicitly mention pagination or filtering behavior; those are covered in the schema.

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 consists of two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('List mail pieces in an inbox'), and the alternative-tool pointer is packed into a compact parenthetical.

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 a well-described schema, the description is complete enough to support correct selection and invocation. It clarifies the summary nature of the output and routes the agent to ecm_get_piece for richer data. Pagination and unread filtering are fully documented in the schema, so no critical context is missing.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (inbox_id, page, per_page, unread_only), so parameter documentation coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List mail pieces in an inbox.' It also differentiates itself from ecm_get_piece by clarifying that this tool returns only a summary, while ecm_get_piece provides full details including media URLs. An agent can immediately determine what this tool does and how it differs from its sibling.

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 parenthetical gives explicit routing guidance: use ecm_get_piece when full details or media URLs are needed, implying this tool is for summary-level listing. This is clear when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative guidance, leaving little to inference.

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