wait_for_mailbox_changes

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

The description discloses that the tool blocks until an event or timeout, has a hard timeout (default 15s), and returns whether a change was observed. The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds context about the blocking behavior and timeout, which is beyond the annotations.

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 description is three sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence adds value: the first explains the operation, the second the use case, and the third a critical warning. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value. It covers all essential behavioral aspects (blocking, timeout, use case, warning) and parameter defaults. Fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the default timeout value but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool opens an IMAP IDLE session and blocks until a change event or timeout, establishing a specific verb-resource relationship. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on real-time change detection without polling, which is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool for detecting real-time inbox activity without polling and warns against using it in fire-and-forget pipelines due to the hard timeout. It provides clear context but could explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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