voidmail_search_inbox

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive annotations: local decryption, the guarantee that the Voidly server is never asked to search, that messages are NOT marked as read, and the encrypted-body 280-char cap unless full_text is set. These are the non-obvious traits an agent needs before calling.

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 core action in the first sentence, then appends behavior and privacy notes in a tight three-sentence block with no filler. Slightly dense but each clause carries 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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the remaining essentials: local-vs-server search behavior, read-state preservation, defaults, and the encrypted-body limit. No output schema exists, but return format is not needed for this filtered-list 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining that encrypted matching is limited to the first 280 characters 'unless full_text is set' and restates the 200-message scan default. This clarifies the practical effect of two parameters rather than repeating their names.

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 ('Search emails by keyword') plus scoping ('on this machine'), which distinguishes it from voidmail_list_inbox's unfiltered listing and voidmail_read_email's single-message fetch. An agent can identify this as the keyword-search tool without opening a schema.

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?

Implicit usage is clear — this is for finding emails by keyword — but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. list_inbox for browsing, read_email for a specific message). The 'newest messages' default hints at scope but does not route the agent among siblings.

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