stalwart_list_queue

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what information is shown (envelope return-path, per-recipient status/retry info, size, age), which is useful. It does not mention side effects, but listing is inherently read-only and no conflicting behavior is indicated.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by useful output details and an alternative tool reference. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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?

Given that this is a simple list operation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential information: what it lists, what fields are shown, and how to get more detail if needed. It is concise yet complete for typical usage, though it does not explain limit behavior or ordering, which could be a minor gap.

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 schema has one parameter (limit) with no description and 0% coverage, yet the description does not mention it or explain its behavior. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any guidance about defaults, maximums, or usage, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states 'List messages currently in the outgoing mail queue' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling stalwart_get_queue_message by noting the difference between metadata listing and full raw content retrieval.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (to list outgoing queue messages) and explicitly names an alternative (stalwart_get_queue_message) for full raw content. This gives the agent direct guidance on choosing between the two.

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