infomaniak_get_mail_webmail_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description reinforces read-only and adds 'admin audit lookups' context, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination or rate limits. It adds some value beyond annotations, so 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. No fluff. Exceptionally concise.

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 an output schema, the tool has a complex action enum with six distinct lookup modes. The description only provides a broad overview and does not clarify how to choose among the actions. This is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description mentions users, teams, and account-scoped access, providing a high-level overview, but it does not explain the specific action enum values or the optional parameters (team_id, user_id, account_id, mailbox_name). An agent would not know the difference between actions like 'user_team_accesses' and 'account_user'.

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 identifies the resource as 'mailbox webmail access for users and teams' plus 'admin audit lookups'. It clearly states it is read-only, distinguishing it from the sibling manage tool.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (inspecting webmail access, admin audits) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. The read-only nature is implied but not contrasted with manage_mail_webmail_access.

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