infomaniak_get_mailbox_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool hits endpoints in parallel for selected fields, and it is a replacement for three older tools. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately explain the key feature (subset selection via fields). No wasted words.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, behavior (parallel requests, replacement of old tools), and parameter usage. An output schema exists for return values, so the description need not detail them. Complete for the tool's scope.

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%, so parameters are well documented. The description adds meaning by explaining that the `fields` argument allows picking a subset and that the tool only hits corresponding endpoints in parallel, which goes beyond the schema's default listing.

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?

Description clearly states it reads mailbox metadata, specifies the exact fields it can retrieve (aliases, signatures, backups) via the `fields` argument, and explicitly mentions it replaces three older tools. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations like listing or creating mailboxes.

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 clear context for using the tool: retrieve mailbox metadata in one call, with the ability to pick subsets. It explicitly notes it replaces the v0.9 trio, guiding away from older tools. However, it does not include explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios, though the context is still strong.

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