infomaniak_get_mailbox_full

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing the specific data categories returned and the 'Manager-private' access level, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the exact scope of returned data. Every listed item is informative and there is no fluff, though the sentence is long and could be slightly more structured with separators.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and data scope. The only notable gap is the lack of parameter clarification, but this is partially offset by the schema and the tool's straightforward nature.

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 schema description coverage is 50%, with only mailbox_name having a description. The tool description adds no information about either parameter, leaving mail_hosting_id entirely unexplained. The agent must rely on external context or other tools to understand that parameter, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 begins with 'Full mailbox detail' followed by a comprehensive enumeration of specific attributes (auto-responder, aliases, redirections, security flags, filters, etc.), making it unmistakably clear that this tool retrieves an exhaustive mailbox snapshot. The scope distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get_mailbox_info or get_mailbox_security, even though those alternatives are not explicitly named.

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 explicitly states 'Useful for mailbox audits and onboarding flows', providing clear context for when to employ this tool. It also adds a 'Manager-private' access restriction. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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