List Historical Reply Scan Results

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that the scan must be completed and that pagination uses an opaque cursor. No contradictions, but additional context like rate limits or error cases is missing.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Perfectly concise for the given information.

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?

Output schema exists, annotations cover safety. Description explains pagination with cursor but omits how to begin (initial call without cursor) and does not mention relationship to sibling tools like create/get reply scan. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has 3 parameters with 33% description coverage (scan_id described as ShipMail resource ID). Description adds that cursor is 'opaque' and implies pagination, but does not detail how to initiate (omit cursor for first page). Minimal added value over 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?

Description clearly states the tool pages through completed historical reply scans using an opaque cursor. The name and title align, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like shipmail_create_reply_scan and shipmail_get_reply_scan.

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?

Description implies use after a scan is completed ('completed historical reply scan') but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions alternatives among siblings.

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