aliasmail_wait_for_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It explains autonomous polling and parsing, but omits important behavior such as what happens on timeout, what the tool returns, error conditions, and whether the inbox must already exist.

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 tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds useful value by emphasizing automation and removal of manual polling/regex parsing.

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 long-polling and parsing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is missing key operational context. It does not describe the return payload, timeout behavior, empty-result behavior, or prerequisites, leaving the agent under-informed for reliable invocation.

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 parameter meanings are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds that it looks for a 4-8 digit OTP or confirmation link, but does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: it polls an AliasMail inbox until a verification/signup email arrives and parses an OTP code or confirmation link. The operation is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling aliasmail_wait_for_email.

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?

Usage is implied for signup/verification flows, and the description says it eliminates manual polling and regex parsing. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to the closely named sibling aliasmail_wait_for_email.

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