wait_for_mailbox_changes

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

Without annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure: blocking, hard timeout (default 15s), and return value. It adds a caution about fire-and-forget misuse. However, it does not explicitly state if the operation is read-only or mention authentication requirements.

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?

Four sentences, no wasted words. The key points (blocking, real-time use, timeout, fire-and-forget warning) are front-loaded in the first two sentences.

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?

The description explains the return value, blocking nature, and timeout, covering the tool's core behavior. It lacks mention of potential errors (e.g., timeout returns false) or prerequisites like a valid connection, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description only reiterates the default timeout, adding no significant extra 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?

The description clearly specifies the action ('Open an IMAP IDLE session and block') and the resource ('mailbox changes'). It uniquely identifies the tool's real-time blocking behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform CRUD operations or polling.

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 states when to use ('detect real-time inbox activity without polling') and warns against fire-and-forget pipelines due to blocking. It implies polling as an alternative but does not name specific sibling tools for comparison.

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