combell_mailboxes_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields (login, sizes, auto-reply/forward settings), which is beyond the annotation scope. It does not cover edge cases like errors or rate limits, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient given the annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key return contents. There is zero waste, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The description adequately covers what the tool returns (login, sizes, auto-reply/forward settings), and the single parameter is well-documented in the schema. Since there is no output schema, the description provides the essential return-value context. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema fully documents the sole parameter mailbox_name with a clear description and example. The tool description does not add any additional semantics about the parameter, so it contributes no value beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action 'Get a mailbox' and specifies the resource and the exact information returned (login, sizes, auto-reply/forward settings). It is distinct from sibling tools like combell_mailboxes_list, which enumerates mailboxes, and from mutation tools. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 retrieving a single mailbox's details by requiring mailbox_name, and the sibling combell_mailboxes_list clearly serves the alternative of listing all mailboxes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name the alternative, so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear context.

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