m365_list_mailboxes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the filter dimension but says nothing about required permissions, pagination/result_size behavior, default scope, or ordering, which an agent needs for a listing 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure tightness.

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. For a 2-parameter read tool this is nearly adequate, but the unexplained result_size default and absent pagination/permission context leave a real gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates the accepted recipient_type values (SharedMailbox, UserMailbox, RoomMailbox), which the schema itself does not. However, result_size and its default of 50 are left completely unexplained, so the compensation is only partial.

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 states a clear verb ("Lists") and resource ("mailboxes") plus the filter dimension (type). It is unambiguous against read-oriented siblings like m365_get_mailbox_info or mutation tools like m365_convert_ex_employee_to_shared, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus m365_get_mailbox_info or m365_list_distribution_groups, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word "Lists."

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