aliasmail_get_messages

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states what the resulting list of messages contains (subject, sender, timestamp, and snippet), which is critical operational context for a retrieval tool.

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 definition is extremely concise and front-loaded. It delivers the purpose and the core context (the service URL) in a single, efficient statement.

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?

The description is highly complete for a listing tool. By including the base URL and detailing the contents of the returned messages, it provides maximum utility even without an output schema to define data structure.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning the description doesn't need to repeat or elaborate on parameter functions. While it provides the base URL for context, it adds no semantic meaning beyond what is already structured.

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 tool clearly fetches emails from a specific resource (AliasMail temporary inbox). It is distinct from single-message retrieval tools (aliasmail_get_message) and waiting tools, making its 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?

While it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against alternatives, the nature of a 'get_messages' tool implies it should be used when a user needs to browse or check for multiple emails rather than waiting for or retrieving one specific message.

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