mail_listMailboxActionLogsV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are paginated, sorted by timestamp descending, and supports date range and event type filters. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, default pagination sizes, or output structure, which are gaps for a mutation-free retrieval tool.

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 concise with four sentences, each contributing distinct information: purpose, constraint, filters, and sorting. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundancy. Minor room for improvement by structuring with bullet points, but it is effective.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core aspects but omits details about the return format (e.g., fields in each log entry) and pagination mechanics beyond 'paginated'. It is sufficient for basic understanding but could be more complete for an agent to use without additional inference.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context by grouping filters (date range, event type) and reinforcing the domain constraint, but does not provide new semantic details beyond what the schema already states. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 retrieves paginated mailbox action logs for a mailbox in a given mail order, specifying the verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'mailbox action logs', and the scope (mail order, domain constraint). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_listAccessLogsV1 or mail_listInboundLogsV1, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

While the description indicates the tool is for mailbox-specific action logs, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or references to sibling tools for different log types, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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