فهرست و جستجوی نامه‌ها

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: result ordering and the implicit mode switch that changing filters causes. It does not cover pagination or result limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then the behavioral rule, then the sibling routing. No filler; every clause carries 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 an 11-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing context (mode switching) and cross-links to the thread tools. Only pagination/return expectations are unaddressed, which is minor.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only adds the meta-rule that any filter triggers cross-box search mode; it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States the resource (letters/نامه‌ها/کارتابل) and the ordering (newest first), and clarifies the two operating modes (box listing vs cross-box search). It distinguishes itself from the letter-thread tools it points to, though it doesn't differentiate from other list/search siblings such as mizito_search_messages.

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?

Gives the key selection rule: no filters = list a box, any filter = search across boxes. It also routes to mizito_get_letter_thread / mizito_reply_letter / mizito_manage_letter for thread work. No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison against other list tools, but the context is clear.

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