nworks_mail_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully discloses the User OAuth authentication requirement and mail.read scope, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe return shape or sorting/pagination behavior, but the safety profile is already covered.

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 two sentences with no redundant content: the main purpose is front-loaded, followed by concrete usage examples and an authentication note. Every clause contributes something an agent needs.

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 list operation, the description covers purpose, typical user intents, and auth requirements, while the schema covers all parameters. There is no output schema, so a note on return format or pagination behavior would make it more complete, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters clearly. The description adds a small amount of intent mapping via the example '안 읽은 메일 있어?' for isUnread, but otherwise does not materially enhance the parameter explanations.

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 tool retrieves a list of received mail ('받은 메일 목록을 조회합니다') and gives concrete example user requests. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like nworks_mail_read or nworks_mail_send, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the resource and action are unambiguous.

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 gives clear trigger phrases ('메일 확인해줘', '받은편지함 보여줘', '안 읽은 메일 있어?') and mentions required OAuth scope. It does not state when to use alternatives such as nworks_mail_read for individual message content, so there are no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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