list_mailbox_webhook_deliveries

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

With no annotations, the description informs about at-least-once delivery, bounded retries, backoff, dead-letter queue (failed_permanent), and the need for deduplication. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then delivery behavior, then usage guidance. No unnecessary words, efficiently conveys key 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?

Given no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers purpose, delivery semantics, filtering, and deduplication. It lacks explicit mention of response structure or pagination beyond the 'after' parameter, but overall is sufficient for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about using the status parameter to inspect failures and mentions the idempotency_key for deduplication, but does not significantly extend parameter meaning beyond schema descriptions.

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 lists 'durable webhook delivery rows for the project's mailbox', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mailbox_webhooks by focusing on deliveries rather than webhook configurations.

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 use case guidance: 'Filter by status to inspect what was lost' and warns consumers to dedupe. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like redrive_mailbox_webhook_delivery for retrying failures.

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