infomaniak_get_mailbox_security

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description aligns with these and adds useful context by listing the specific fields returned (authorized senders, blocked senders, spam policy, filtering folders, note). It does not cover error or authorization nuances, but annotations reduce the burden.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and uses a colon-delimited list to enumerate the returned state. No wasted words.

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?

This is a simple read operation with two well-documented parameters, a full output schema, and annotations confirming its safety and non-destructiveness. The description adds the key conceptual scope, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both required parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, but none are needed because the schema already explains mailbox_name and mail_hosting_id clearly.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the exact resource and scope ('mailbox security and spam-control state'), then enumerates the contained items. This clearly distinguishes it from generic getters and mutators in the sibling list.

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 implies its usage context by naming the security/spam-control state, but it does not explicitly contrast with overlapping siblings like get_mailbox_full, list_mailbox_filters, or audit_mailbox_security. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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