yahoo_list_mail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral context: the effective default of last 30 days when no date is given (schema only shows null), default folder INBOX, max 100 results, and account resolution from accounts.json. What it omits is the safety profile (that this is a non-mutating read) and any error/auth failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by the non-obvious id/IMAP-UID note, then a compact Args block. Every sentence carries information the agent cannot get from the schema, and there is no repetition or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and all parameters are documented. The main remaining gap is that pagination beyond a single top-window, auth requirements, and behavior on invalid folder/date are unspecified for a 4-parameter listing tool with 12 siblings.

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 and it does: it documents all four parameters with types, defaults (top=20, folder=INBOX, account=file default), the YYYY-MM-DD date format for 'since', the max of 100, and the meaning of the account key. This goes well beyond the bare titles and defaults in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List recent messages' with the fields returned (subject, sender, date, attachment indicators). It is clear what the tool does, but it never positions itself against siblings like yahoo_search_mail or yahoo_get_mail, so the agent must infer the boundary between browsing recent mail and querying it.

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?

Usage is implied by the default 'last 30 days' window and by the note that the returned id is what 'every msg_id parameter expects', which hints at the browse-then-act workflow with get_mail/move_mail/delete_mail. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no mention of search_mail as the alternative for targeted queries.

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