Mail-Accounts auflisten

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, lowering the burden. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotation: it specifies the exact information returned (servers, send permission) and guarantees that passwords are never exposed. This is useful behavioral disclosure without contradicting the annotation.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds essential detail and a security guarantee. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only listing tool with no parameters and an existing readOnlyHint annotation, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it lists, what fields are included, and that passwords are never exposed. The lack of an output schema is acceptable for such a simple operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than on parameter details, which are irrelevant here. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Listet' = lists) with a clear resource ('Mail-Accounts') and adds detail about the included fields (servers, send permission) and an explicit security note (passwords never output). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mail_list_mailboxes (which lists mailboxes, not accounts) and other operations.

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 implies usage for listing configured accounts, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mail_list_mailboxes or mail_test_connection. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated, so the guidance is left to inference.

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