Mail Outbound Logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it lists outbound mail logs but does not mention pagination, response format, potential side effects (if any), or required permissions, leaving the agent without important behavioral context.

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 ('List outbound mail logs.') that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, and the structure is simple and direct.

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 the lack of annotations, absence of an output schema, and the minimal description, the agent is left without contextual details such as what 'outbound' specifically means, how logs are filtered (if at all), or what the response contains. This is barely more than a tool label and insufficient for a complex family of log-related tools.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'order_id' ('Mail order ID'), so the schema already documents the parameter clearly. The tool description adds no parameter information, but no compensation is needed given the high schema coverage, so a 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 outbound mail logs' clearly states the tool's action (list) and resource (outbound mail logs), and the qualifier 'outbound' distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_logs_inbound. However, it provides no additional scope or context beyond what the tool name implies.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mail_logs_inbound, mail_logs_access, or mail_logs_action, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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