Mail List Mailboxes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it is safe and idempotent. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what mailboxes are returned, whether the account parameter is required, or any side effects.

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 short, but the brevity comes from omitting substantive content rather than from efficient explanation. It spends its one sentence on a meta-wrapper phrase instead of describing the operation.

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?

Even though the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description still fails to explain what listing mailboxes means, what the account parameter controls, or what the agent should expect in the response. In the context of many sibling mail tools, this is not enough.

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 single optional 'account' parameter has no schema description and 0% schema coverage. The tool description also does not explain what 'account' means, what format it should take, or what null/default behavior implies. This leaves the only parameter effectively undocumented.

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 is essentially a tautology: it repeats the tool name and says it is 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP', but never states what the tool actually does. There is no verb, resource description, or distinction from sibling mail tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what scenario it fits, or how it differs from related tools like mail_search_messages or mail_suggest_mailboxes. An agent gets no help selecting it over alternatives.

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