assistantmail_list_mailboxes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states the operation and the authentication scope, which is useful. However, it does not disclose possible pagination, response format, ordering, or any side effects, though 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, resource, and scope immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple list operation with only one optional parameter, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent what the tool does and what scope it covers. However, because there is no output schema and no explanation of the parameter or response shape, the description is not fully complete for an agent that needs to process the returned mailbox data.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, apiKey, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. Since the parameter is optional and the description provides no guidance on when to pass it or how it relates to the 'authenticated account,' the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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, 'Lists', and a specific resource, 'mailboxes', and clarifies scope with 'accessible to the authenticated account.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_mailbox, get_mailbox, update_mailbox, and delete_mailbox, which serve different actions on the same resource.

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?

The description implies the tool is used when you need to enumerate the mailboxes associated with the authenticated account, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_mailbox for a single mailbox. Usage context is inferred rather than directly provided.

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