assistantmail_list_messages_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that messages are listed; it does not mention pagination, response shape, authentication requirements, ordering, or what distinguishes this 'reference' variant behaviorally.

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 concise sentence and is easy to scan. It is appropriately short for a one-parameter tool, though it sacrifices useful differentiation for brevity.

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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It leaves open the relationship to assistantmail_list_messages, the meaning of 'reference', and any behavioral details needed for a caller to trust the result.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented mailboxId parameter. It only vaguely ties 'mailbox' to the operation and does not explain where the mailboxId comes from, its expected format, or how to obtain valid values.

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 identifies a clear action and resource: listing messages (inbound and outbound) in a mailbox. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the closely named sibling assistantmail_list_messages, and the 'reference' suffix is left unexplained.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over assistantmail_list_messages or any other sibling. The description implies a listing use case but does not state conditions, alternatives, or exclusions needed for correct tool selection.

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