list_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the timezone (UTC+8) and default limit, but omits whether the operation is read-only, what authentication is required, how pagination works, or what format the returned emails take.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then cleanly separates the parameter explanation. It is short, avoids redundancy, and every sentence contributes needed 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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks return-value context and any mention of pagination or authorization, leaving gaps an agent may need before invoking it.

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 for the single parameter. It explains that 'limit' is an optional integer controlling the maximum number of returned emails, with a default of 10, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema type and default.

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 ('列出收件箱中的最近邮件') with a timezone qualifier, clearly separating it from send_email and delete_email. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools, but the resource scope is distinct enough to prevent confusion.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies retrieval of recent emails, but gives no conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons such as using send_email when you need to compose instead.

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