aliasmail_wait_for_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state what happens on timeout, whether matching messages are consumed or marked read, whether old existing emails can match, or what the polling/waiting cost is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately compact, though slightly too terse for a blocking tool with five parameters.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and five parameters including timeout behavior. The description omits the return value, timeout semantics, and whether the wait is destructive/consuming, which are needed to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents address, filters, timeout, and poll interval. The description only echoes the optional sender/subject filtering and adds no meaning 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: waits for new incoming email on an AliasMail temporary inbox, with optional sender/subject filtering. It is distinguishable from immediate-fetch siblings, but it never names or contrasts with aliasmail_get_messages or aliasmail_wait_for_code.

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 verb 'wait' implies blocking until a new email arrives, which implicitly contrasts with the immediate fetch siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no statement about when to prefer aliasmail_wait_for_code.

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