assistantmail_get_mailbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'gets,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose response shape, error cases, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the call is safe and idempotent. For an unannotated tool, this is insufficient.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core operation and target are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter and contains no redundant clauses.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this definition is too thin. An agent cannot know what metadata fields are returned, whether apiKey is required beyond schema presence, or how this tool relates to the many sibling tools. It provides only the bare action and target.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to mailboxId by saying 'for a mailbox ID' and ties it to 'mailbox metadata,' but it does not explain the apiKey parameter or its role/precondition. This is partial compensation, not enough for two parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gets'), a resource ('mailbox metadata'), and a scope ('for a mailbox ID'), making it clear this is a single-mailbox lookup. It is not quite a 5 because it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_mailboxes or get_me, and 'mailbox metadata' is somewhat underspecified.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_mailboxes, get_me, or get_inbound_policy. Usage is only implied by 'for a mailbox ID'; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints. This is effectively no usage guidance beyond the core action.

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