wirebox_mail_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, ordering, return format, or whether any side effects occur (e.g., marking messages read). The scope 'this agent's mailbox' is a minor positive, but otherwise transparency is minimal.

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 concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it may be slightly under-specified. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 the absence of an output schema and the presence of 4 parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned list contains (e.g., fields, metadata), ordering, or any default behavior beyond what the schema implies. An agent would have to guess about the response structure and any additional nuances.

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% for all 4 parameters, each with its own description. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but since the schema already fully documents them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not enhance or clarify parameter meaning.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'email messages in this agent's mailbox', which precisely identifies the operation. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like wirebox_mail_send (send) and iMessage tools by explicitly mentioning email and mailbox.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, alternatives, or contextual conditions. An agent must infer that listing emails is the intended use, but there is no explicit instruction.

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