Mailbox Action Logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action and gives no details about pagination, date range, response size, or any side effects. For a log-listing tool, users would need to know e.g., whether logs are recent or all, or any limits, none of which are disclosed.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 one well-defined parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. It clearly indicates the resource type. However, it doesn't explain what mailbox action logs contain, how they are scoped, or when they are available, which could leave an agent uncertain about the return value and filter options.

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 single parameter order_id is fully described in the schema ('Mail order ID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 mailbox-level action logs' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (mailbox action logs), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like mail_logs_action or mail_logs_access, so it falls short of the top score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many similar mail log tools (mail_logs_access, mail_logs_inbound, mail_logs_outbound, mail_logs_action), the lack of any contextual recommendation or exclusion is a clear gap.

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