list_mail_accounts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: passwords are always masked, which reassures the agent about sensitive data handling. It also clarifies the scope of accounts (IMAP accounts Paperless fetches mail from). No contradiction with annotations.

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 zero filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the security-relevant password masking note earns its place. Ideal length for the tool's simplicity.

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 straightforward paginated list tool, the description plus readOnlyHint and a fully documented schema are sufficient. No output schema exists, but the description provides an adequate picture of results (list of IMAP accounts with masked passwords). Slight gap: no explicit mention of pagination behavior, though parameters imply it.

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 100% – both page and page_size are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 ('List') and a specific resource ('the IMAP accounts Paperless fetches mail from'). This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like get_mail_account (single account), create_mail_account, and list_mail_rules.

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 context is clear: this tool is for listing all IMAP accounts, as opposed to retrieving a single account (get_mail_account) or mutating accounts (create/update/delete). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use,' so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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