admin_email_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the access requirement (SUPER_ADMIN), the resource type (lifecycle emails), and the available filter categories. However, it doesn't state that this is a read-only operation explicitly, what fields are returned per entry, how pagination behaves in edge cases (e.g., default page size is in schema), or whether results are sorted. For a list/audit tool the access-level disclosure is valuable, but several behavioral details remain unspecified.

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 compact—two well-formed sentences that front-load the purpose and permission, then enumerate categories and use cases. The list of categories is slightly long but functionally necessary. It wastes minimal words and each clause adds value. Could trim slightly but remains efficient.

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?

For a filtered list/audit tool with 8 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, categories, and use cases adequately. The access-level requirement is disclosed, which matters for an admin tool. A note about the return format or sort order would improve completeness, but the description communicates enough for an agent to successfully invoke and interpret the tool in most scenarios.

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 every one of the 8 parameters already has a description in the schema. The tool description lists the email categories and use cases, which complements the schema by explaining what the category enum maps to (though the actual enum only has 4 status values, not the 6 categories listed). Most parameters are self-explanatory (page, limit, dateTo, dateFrom). The description adds meaningful filter context but doesn't elaborate on parameter formats beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 uses specific verb+resource ('List lifecycle email log entries') and explicitly states the operation is a read/audit tool scoped to admin. It enumerates all six email categories, which distinguishes it clearly from the mail_config, webhooks_deliveries, and notifications tools. The statement 'SUPER_ADMIN only' adds access-level clarity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use to audit delivery, debug suppressions, or check drip cadence.' This gives concrete usage scenarios that differentiate it from related email/log tools. It also names the access restriction (SUPER_ADMIN) which is an implicit prerequisite. No alternative tools are named, but the use cases are specific enough that an agent can decide appropriately.

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