infomaniak_get_mail_device_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds contextual framing (two modes) but no additional behavioral details such as pagination or response format. It is consistent with annotations, with no contradiction detected.

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 one well-structured sentence that conveys both modes without redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and remains compact.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the tool has two distinct actions and 5 parameters, and the description does not clarify which parameters are required per action or what distinguishes 'mailbox' from 'service' scope. This leaves a moderate gap for an agent to invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at two modes (inspect a user vs. list inventories) but does not explain required parameters like mail_hosting_id, nor how user_id and mailbox_name relate to action. This leaves key parameter semantics undocumented.

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 a read-only purpose with specific verbs 'Inspect' and 'list', identifies the resource (mailbox device/session access, device inventories), and differentiates from the sibling management tool 'infomaniak_manage_mail_device_access' by emphasizing inspection and planning rather than modification.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'for a selected mailbox user' and 'for cleanup planning'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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