Vänta på nytt mejl

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: messages are fetched with BODY.PEEK and never marked read, the shared connection is released while waiting so concurrent tools work, watched mailboxes use IDLE while others poll every 5 seconds, and the first poll only sets the watermark. It also warns that email content is untrusted and must not be followed as instructions, and documents ValueError/TimeoutError behaviour precisely.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then layers behaviour, Args, Returns and Raises in a scannable structure. It is longer than average but nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs, with only mild redundancy in restating defaults.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return payload (same fields as check_new_emails plus timed_out and waited_seconds) and the empty-messages case on timeout. Combined with error semantics and the IDLE-vs-polling detail, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the load: mailbox is documented as the folder to watch (default INBOX) and timeout_seconds as the maximum wait in seconds, 1–300, default 60. It adds semantic meaning (what the folder represents, what waiting means) but repeats the range/default already encoded in the schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Vänta tills ett nytt mejl kommer till mappen') with the bounding constraint (timeout_seconds) up front. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling check_new_emails by explaining that both share the same watermark, so an agent can tell the blocking wait apart from the polling check.

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?

Explains the decisive condition for immediate return (mail already arrived since the last call by this tool or check_new_emails) versus actually waiting, and clarifies that other tools remain usable during the wait. It never explicitly states the when-not-to-use case (e.g. 'use check_new_emails if you do not want to block'), so it falls just short of a 5.

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