exchange_get_mailbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get', which implies a read operation. It does not mention side effects, permissions, identity format limitations, errors, or return behavior, adding little beyond the tool name.

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 five words with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is clean and scannable.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, an agent needs more context to invoke it correctly. The description is too minimal: it lacks identity value guidance, sibling differentiation, and any indication of the returned mailbox details.

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 for the undocumented 'identity' parameter. Saying 'by identity' only restates the parameter name and confirms it is the lookup key; it does not explain acceptable formats such as UPN, SMTP address, alias, or GUID.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('mailbox details') with a selection mechanism ('by identity'). It is distinct from listing siblings like exchange_list_mailboxes, though 'details' is somewhat generic and could be more specific about what is returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as exchange_get_mailbox_statistics or exchange_get_mailbox_permissions. The phrase 'by identity' mildly implies a single-object lookup, but no alternatives, exclusions, or decision criteria are given.

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