proofpoint_quarantine_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (sender, recipient, subject, reason), which is useful, but it does not mention pagination behavior, that it is a read-only operation, or any side effects or prerequisites. For a simple list tool, this provides moderate transparency but leaves gaps.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that lead with the action ('List quarantined messages') and immediately clarify the response contents. Every word contributes to the core understanding, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives the essential purpose and return fields but omits important context like pagination defaults, the fact that all parameters are optional, and that without filters it lists all quarantined messages. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps for a full operational understanding.

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?

All 8 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how parameters affect results; it merely mentions output fields. Thus it does not elevate above the schema-only baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List quarantined messages') and enumerates returned fields (sender, recipient, subject, reason). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling proofpoint_quarantine_search, leaving slight ambiguity about when to use list vs search.

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 like proofpoint_quarantine_search, release, or delete. The description only states what it does, omitting any context on which actions are appropriate or when to favor it over siblings.

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