ClawAIMail

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 mentions the default inbox behavior but doesn't describe important behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a listing tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that both earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important usage context about the default inbox. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (message structure, fields), doesn't mention pagination behavior despite having a 'limit' parameter, and doesn't address authentication requirements or error conditions. For a listing tool with multiple filtering options, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the default inbox behavior for the 'inbox_id' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('messages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other messaging tools like 'read_email' or 'search_emails' by focusing on listing rather than reading/searching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_inboxes' beyond the resource name.

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 some usage guidance by explaining what happens when 'inbox_id is omitted' (uses default inbox), which helps with parameter usage. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_emails' or 'read_email', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for using this tool.

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