list_mailing_lists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the schema by noting the 'hard-capped at 100' limit for the 'limit' parameter, which is a concrete behavioral constraint. It also clarifies that the mailboxes are 'available over IMAP'. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only, though for a listing tool this is less critical.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a compact Args section. Every line contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two simple parameters.

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 tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, and the description covers its purpose and parameters well. It mentions the hard-cap for limit, which is important. However, it lacks any mention of the return format or pagination behavior, which could be relevant for a listing operation. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor 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?

The input schema has 0% coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. For 'pattern', it provides IMAP LIST patterns with examples like '"agent*"' and '"*"'. For 'limit', it clarifies meaning and 'hard-capped at 100'. This adds semantic depth beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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's function: 'List IETF mailing-list mailboxes available over IMAP.' This provides a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('IETF mailing-list mailboxes'), and a specific context ('available over IMAP'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_list or get_message that operate on messages rather than 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 gives a clear purpose but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage context is implied through the tool name and description, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools, so the guidance is limited.

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