List Mail Queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Side effects: None (read-only)' merely restates structured data and adds no new behavioral information. It says nothing about pagination behavior, default result volume, or what happens when start_index exceeds the queue length.

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 labeled fragments, front-loaded with purpose before side effects, with zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves substantive gaps rather than excess.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description gives no indication of what a result contains or how pagination fields interact, and it does not disambiguate among the several queue siblings. Annotations and the schema cover safety and parameters, but the routing and result-shape context an agent needs is absent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and the baseline is 3. The description's references to 'type', 'offset', and 'limit' loosely map to queue_type/start_index/page_size but use different names, adding neither format detail nor constraint context beyond the schema.

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 names the resource and the HTTP endpoint ('GET /v1/queue') and implicitly a listing operation, so the basic purpose is recoverable. However, it never states what a queue listing actually is in this context and offers no differentiation from the adjacent siblings fortimail.queue.search, fortimail.queue.view, or fortimail.queue.download, leaving an agent to guess which queue reader to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says how this differs from queue.search (filtered retrieval) or queue.view (single-item detail), nor whether it should be preferred for broad enumeration. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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