Mail Action Logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List,' which implies a read-only operation, but provides no details on return format, permissions, pagination, or what 'action logs' actually contain. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately states the action and resource, making it highly economical.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the logs contain, what the response looks like, or how it differs from similar log tools. It does none of this, leaving the agent under-informed despite the simple one-parameter schema.

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 a single parameter 'order_id' described as 'Mail order ID.' The description adds nothing beyond this, but since the schema already documents the only parameter, the baseline of 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 'List mail action logs.' clearly states the verb (List) and resource (mail action logs), making its basic purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like mail_logs_access, mail_logs_inbound, or mail_logs_outbound, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many other mail log tools or how it differs from them. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without any usage direction.

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