outbox_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the outcome vocabulary and the sent_msg_id relationship, but does not mention ordering, pagination, default limit, filtering behavior, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states what is returned, the second gives the practical use case. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the core return semantics and a concrete use case. It is slightly incomplete on default/filter behavior, but an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by enumerating the outcome/status values, but it does not explain the limit parameter or clarify that status filters the returned drafts.

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 identifies the resource (recent drafts/outbox) and the key output: outcome statuses plus sent_msg_id for sent items. It differentiates the tool from siblings by linking sent_msg_id to draft_edit/draft_delete, and gives a concrete use case ('the message I sent earlier').

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?

It provides a clear context for when to use the tool: to find a previously sent message and obtain the ID needed for editing/deleting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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