mailbox_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the optional status filter and the 'your mailbox' scope, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how status values are interpreted, whether results are paginated or ordered, or how agent_id affects the call.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and the optional qualifier is appended cleanly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and several sibling mailbox tools, the description is too thin. It does not clarify agent_id, status semantics, return contents, or when to prefer this over mailbox_check and mailbox_wait, so an agent would have to guess important details.

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 must compensate. It gives meaning to 'status' by indicating optional filtering, but it leaves 'agent_id' completely unexplained and does not define valid status values. This is insufficient for two parameters.

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 action ('List messages') and the resource ('your mailbox'), and it mentions an optional status filter. However, it does not distinguish this tool from read-related siblings like mailbox_check or mailbox_wait.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mailbox_check, mailbox_wait, or mailbox_reply. The only usage signal is the verb 'List', which leaves selection among sibling tools to inference.

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