list_mailbox_webhook_deliveries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses at-least-once delivery, retries, backoff, and the dead-letter queue concept. However, it omits pagination behavior, rate limits, auth requirements, and whether the operation is read-only.

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 (3 sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently covers the core concept and critical instructions.

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 complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers essential behavioral aspects but lacks details on output shape (e.g., fields beyond idempotency_key), pagination usage of 'after', and the 'limit' parameter cap. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 value by mentioning the need to dedupe on idempotency_key and to filter by status, but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema.

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 it lists webhook delivery rows for the project's mailbox, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mailbox_webhooks and includes behavioral context (durable, at-least-once retries, dead-letter queue).

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 suggests using this tool to inspect lost events by filtering on status, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., redrive_mailbox_webhook_delivery). No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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