nworks_mail_list

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Explicitly states 'User OAuth 인증 필요 (mail.read scope)' revealing auth requirements and read-only nature. Could improve by mentioning pagination behavior with cursor or empty result handling, but auth disclosure is critical and present.

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?

Three sentences structured as: purpose → usage examples → auth requirements. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by concrete NLP triggers, ending with technical prerequisites.

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?

Appropriate for a 5-parameter list operation with no output schema. Covers OAuth scope requirements essential for this domain. Absence of output schema means description correctly avoids speculating return values. Pagination mentioned via cursor existence in schema, though description could note paging 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?

Schema has 100% description coverage, setting baseline at 3. Description adds value by mapping natural language requests to parameter usage (e.g., '안 읽은 메일 있어?' implies isUnread=true, '받은편지함' implies folderId default behavior), enriching semantic understanding beyond schema definitions.

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?

Description opens with specific verb-resource pair '받은 메일 목록을 조회합니다' (Query the received mail list). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools nworks_mail_send (sending) and nworks_mail_read (individual message retrieval) by emphasizing 목록 (list) and 받은편지함 (inbox) scope.

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?

Provides explicit example user requests ('메일 확인해줘', '받은편지함 보여줘', '안 읽은 메일 있어?') indicating when to invoke. Lacks explicit contrast with nworks_mail_read for single-message retrieval, but examples effectively signal list-oriented usage patterns.

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