list_mailbox_webhook_deliveries

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: at-least-once delivery, bounded retries with backoff, permanent failures landing in a dead-letter queue ('failed_permanent'), and the need for consumers to dedupe using the idempotency_key. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, behavioral detail, and usage advice. No redundancy or filler. Perfectly front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, and key usage context (filtering, deduplication). It does not specify return format or pagination details, but those are partially addressed by the input schema. For a list tool without output schema, it provides sufficient completeness to understand what the tool does and how to use it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the status filter's purpose ('inspect what was lost') and highlighting deduplication, which relates to the data but not directly to parameters. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone, earning a 4.

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', the resource 'durable webhook delivery rows', and the scope 'for the project's mailbox'. It immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'get_mailbox_webhook' (single webhook config) and 'redrive_mailbox_webhook_delivery' (redrive).

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 guidance: 'Filter by status to inspect what was lost' and includes important constraints like at-least-once delivery and deduplication requirements. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools but implies when to use (e.g., for inspecting failed deliveries). The lack of explicit 'when not to use' prevents a 5.

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