mail_forward_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. However, the description adds no behavioral context of its own: no mention of permissions, pagination, empty-result behavior, or what constitutes an entry beyond what the annotations already say.

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 short and front-loads the purpose before the Args block, with zero filler. It is terse rather than padded, though the brevity borders on under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. For a two-parameter read tool that is minimally adequate, but with 0% parameter coverage and no format guidance, the description leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 carries the full burden for the two parameters. It only restates 'domain: Домен' and 'mailbox: Имя ящика', giving no expected format (e.g. whether domain includes a scheme, whether mailbox is a local part or a full address, or whether an alias is accepted), so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 phrase 'Адреса пересылки для ящика' (forwarding addresses for a mailbox) clearly names the resource being retrieved, and the name mail_forward_list supplies the list verb. It is unambiguous on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as mail_forward_add/mail_forward_delete or explain the scope of the listing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus mail_forward_add, mail_forward_delete, or mail_forward_list's relation to mail_change_settings. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name, and no prerequisites or alternative tools are mentioned.

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