get_mailbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a read-only operation through 'Get' and the explicit scope 'mailbox:read'. However, it does not disclose response format, error behavior, or whether any additional permissions are required, leaving some behavioral details unspecified.

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 a single sentence with no fluff. It opens with the action and resource, then adds the required identifier and scope. Every word contributes useful information.

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?

This is a simple read tool with one required parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and how to invoke it. It stops short of describing the returned detail fields, but for a 'get by ID' tool the provided scope and lookup key are largely enough.

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 schema has one undocumented 'id' parameter (0% schema description coverage). The description's 'by ID' directly clarifies that the parameter is the mailbox identifier, adding meaningful semantic context the schema alone does not provide.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('mailbox details'), and the lookup key ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from list_mailboxes, which returns multiple mailboxes, and from mutation siblings like update_mailbox.

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 context: use this when you need details for a specific mailbox identified by its ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is unambiguous enough given the sibling tool names.

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