list_mail_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key safety trait ('Never returns passwords') and implies read-only access. However, it does not mention authentication, return format, or other behavioral details, so transparency is minimal but present.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Mailboxes the user can read') and adds a critical safety note. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits any explanation of teamId and does not clarify how this tool relates to sibling mail tools like search_mail or read_mail. The safety note is useful but insufficient for fully informed 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 does not mention the teamId parameter at all. The agent is left without any explanation of what teamId does or when to include it, so the description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 'Mailboxes the user can read' clearly indicates the tool returns a list of mailboxes the user has access to, matching the 'list' verb in the name. It is not a tautology because it adds access-control context, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'List all mailboxes...'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_mail or read_mail. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool.

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