List İTÜ Mail Inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it does not mark messages as read, it returns stable IMAP UIDs (useful for follow-up calls), and it warns that email fields are untrusted external content (a prompt-injection caveat). It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or failure modes.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the safety caveat placed last. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the security note covers the main risk. However, with three undocumented parameters and no routing guidance against the other mail tools, the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description never mentions limit, since_days, or unread_only. Only 'recent' hints weakly at the time-window parameter; the unread_only switch and the result-count cap are undocumented anywhere, so the agent cannot use them confidently.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List recent INBOX headers and stable IMAP UIDs' tells the agent exactly what comes back (headers/UIDs, not full bodies). It implicitly differentiates from sibling mail_get_message (which fetches a single message), but never names that sibling, so the distinction is left partly to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no alternative named, despite three closely related mail tools (mail_status, mail_get_message, mail_get_attachment). The agent must infer that this is the entry point for browsing the inbox before fetching a message by UID.

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