m365_list_inbox_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful scope context by stating that both client-side and server-side rules are returned, implying a read-only inspection, but it omits permission requirements, result limits, and pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope are stated immediately.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple read. However, for a tool sharing a crowded rule/audit namespace, the description never routes the agent away from siblings like m365_list_transport_rules or explains prerequisites.

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% for a single required parameter, and the description only implies the mailbox selector via 'a specific mailbox.' Since only one, self-evidently named parameter (user_upn) exists, the gap is minor but the UPN format is never clarified.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (client-side and server-side inbox rules) scoped to a specific mailbox. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling m365_list_transport_rules, which the 'rules' wording could easily be confused with.

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, no mention of when a transport-rule listing is preferable, and no prerequisites or permissions noted. The agent must infer context entirely from the name.

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