get_mailbox_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns minimal metadata, throws if not found, and clarifies the path separator and unsupported characters. It could be more specific about what 'minimal metadata' includes, but it is generally transparent for a lookup tool.

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 two sentences without wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then provides essential details, making it efficient and clear.

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?

Given it's a simple lookup tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, input format, error behavior, and constraints.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'path' parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the format from root, separator, and giving an example, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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 clearly states the tool looks up a single mailbox by its full path from root, returning the mailbox ID and minimal metadata. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_mailboxes by focusing on a single exact match lookup.

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 specifies when to use: to get a mailbox by exact path. It includes an error case ('Mailbox not found') but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives. The context of sibling tools implies that for listing all mailboxes, list_mailboxes should be used.

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