mah_list_messages

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description isn't obligated to cover that. It adds genuinely valuable context beyond the annotation: an explicit prompt-injection warning that subjects and previews are authored by third parties and must be treated as data, never instructions. It does not discuss pagination or result limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by workflow linkage and a safety note. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so adequately: it notes each record carries a conversationId and mentions subjects/previews. For a read-only tool with 2 optional, fully documented parameters this is sufficient, though it says nothing about result volume or paging.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description goes further by supplying concrete folder tag values (1 = Conversations/inbox, 2 = Archive) that the schema only references indirectly via mah_list_message_folders. The view parameter is left entirely to the schema, which already documents it thoroughly, so it does not reach a 5.

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 ("List Message Center conversations") plus the scoping dimension ("for a folder"). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming mah_list_message_folders as the source of folder tags and mah_reply_message as the consumer of the returned conversationId, so the agent can place it in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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 gives clear workflow context: get folder tags from mah_list_message_folders first, and use the conversationId with mah_reply_message. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer a different reader), but the sequencing guidance is concrete and actionable.

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