mail_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 description doesn't need to establish safety. The description adds the domain-scoping constraint, which is useful context, but doesn't cover return format, pagination, or behavior when the domain has no mailboxes. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the resource and domain scope stated before the parameter note. No wasted sentences, though the description is arguably under-specified rather than concise in a positive way.

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 list tool with an output schema, the essentials (resource, required domain parameter with example) are present. Still missing which mailbox attributes are returned or how results are ordered, but the output schema likely covers return values.

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% and only the description documents the single parameter, including a concrete format example ('сайт.ru'), which compensates for the missing schema description. There's only one parameter, so there's limited additional semantic depth to 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 states the resource ('почтовые ящики', mailbox list) and a domain scope, which roughly implies a listing operation. However, it uses a noun phrase without an explicit verb like 'list', and doesn't distinguish itself from siblings such as mail_create or mail_delete in the mail_* family. Purpose is inferable but weakly specific.

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 use this tool versus related mail tools (mail_create, mail_delete, mail_forward_list) or domain tools. An agent must infer usage from the name alone, with no conditions or exclusions provided.

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