infomaniak_get_mail_signatures

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description aligns with these. It adds the scope dimension ('at the mailbox or service level') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and target resource, and the second sentence reinforces the read-only nature and intended use. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler.

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?

Despite having annotations and an output schema, the required 'action' parameter is completely undocumented in both the schema and description. An agent would not understand the difference between list, show, and show_default from the description alone. With 7 parameters and 4 required, this is a significant completeness gap.

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 coverage is 57%, with descriptions for scope, resource, mailbox_name, and mail_hosting_id. However, the required 'action' parameter (list/show/show_default) has no description, and neither do 'signature_id' or 'template_id'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the gaps.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and clearly identifies the resources (mailbox signatures and signature templates) and scope levels (mailbox or service). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'infomaniak_manage_mail_signatures' by emphasizing 'Read-only inventory', making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides clear context with 'Read-only inventory for admin review and template selection', implying when to use it (inspection) rather than management. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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