AgentLair

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns recent messages with specific fields, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's action and return value. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return fields, but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, but it meets the bare minimum for a read operation.

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 both parameters ('limit' and 'address') with details like defaults and examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying the 'address' format or 'limit' implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: checking an inbox for an @agentlair.dev email address and returning recent messages with specific fields (sender, subject, received time). It uses specific verbs ('check', 'returns') and identifies the resource (inbox for @agentlair.dev addresses). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_message' or 'list_addresses', which prevents a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a claimed address), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'read_message' for detailed content or 'list_addresses' for address management. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the free tier supports multiple addresses, adding some context about availability, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, whether the claim is reversible, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, and the second provides tier context.

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?

Given one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and tier context but lacks behavioral details for a mutation tool, such as error handling or response format, leaving gaps in completeness.

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%, with the parameter 'address' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as validation rules or examples, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Claim') and resource ('@agentlair.dev email address'), specifying it's for the user's agent. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_addresses' or 'check_inbox', which handle existing addresses rather than creating new ones.

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 implies usage by mentioning the 'Free tier supports multiple addresses,' suggesting it can be used when needing a new address. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_addresses' for viewing existing ones or prerequisites for claiming.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('List all') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs beyond the API key, or what happens if no addresses are associated. It adds basic context but lacks details on response format or potential errors.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('List all') and resource. There is zero waste, and every word contributes to clarifying the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks information on return values (e.g., list format, fields) or error conditions. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied as it effectively handles the lack of parameters without redundancy.

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 specific action ('List all') and resource ('@agentlair.dev email addresses'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like check_inbox (which reads messages) or claim_address (which acquires addresses). It specifies the scope as 'associated with your API key', making the purpose 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 implies usage when needing to see all available email addresses under the current API key, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like claim_address (for obtaining new addresses) or check_inbox (for reading messages). It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'full content' includes beyond body text (e.g., headers, attachments). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read the full content of a specific email message') and adds a clarifying detail ('including the body text'). There is no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of the content), error handling, or dependencies like needing message_id from check_inbox. For a tool that retrieves data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 both parameters (message_id and address) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Read') and resource ('full content of a specific email message'), including the scope ('including the body text'). It distinguishes from check_inbox (which lists messages) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like send_email. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 implies usage when needing detailed message content, as opposed to check_inbox for listing messages. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites like requiring a valid message_id from check_inbox. Usage is contextually implied but not clearly articulated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the @agentlair.dev address requirement and convenience aspect, it lacks critical behavioral information such as rate limits, delivery guarantees, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens if the email fails to send. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds valuable context about the convenience aspect. Every sentence earns its place and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical aspects like what happens after sending (success/failure indicators), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The convenience statement is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context needed for a tool that performs external actions.

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 description doesn't provide any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It mentions the @agentlair.dev requirement for the 'from' address, but this is already documented in the schema description for that parameter. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the specific action ('send an email'), specifies the resource (email), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning the unique @agentlair.dev address requirement. It explicitly differentiates from tools like check_inbox or read_message by focusing on sending rather than receiving/reading.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('send an email... to any recipient') and mentions the convenience aspect ('No SMTP or DNS setup needed'), which helps distinguish it from external email solutions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide direct alternatives among the sibling tools.

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