Get Mailbox Connection

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it performs credential validation and reads specific connection-scoped data. It also clarifies a boundary—no mailbox storage access is required—which is useful beyond what annotations express. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main action and result are front-loaded, and the scope-limiting statement about mailbox selection follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simple signature (one optional param, zero required), a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains purpose, scope, and what will be returned without requiring additional inference.

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 covers 100% of the single optional parameter, If-None-Match, with a clear ETag-based description. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but this is acceptable because the schema already documents the only parameter fully. Baseline 3 applies.

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-resource pair: validate the current Mailbox credential and read connection metadata. It explicitly lists the returned concepts (team, connection label, permissions, authorised mailboxes) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on Mailbox connection rather than sending connection. It also adds a scoping statement that no mailbox selection is required.

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 clear invocation context: use this to validate the credential and read connection-level information without needing mailbox selection or mailbox storage access. It does not explicitly name an alternative like sending_get_connection or state when-not-to-use, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the right situation.

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