infomaniak_list_email_imports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint true, and the description's 'List' is consistent. It adds small context that the response includes job state, but no further behavioral caveats or pagination warnings are provided, so it meets but does not exceed the annotation baseline.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence delivers the essential purpose with no filler. It earns high marks for clarity and brevity.

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?

For a simple list operation, the description covers the core semantics, and the provided output schema handles return-value details. However, it leaves the purpose of required parameters and the optional query behavior unexplained, which is acceptable but slightly incomplete for a tool with nested query options.

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%, and the description only hints at mailbox scope without explaining mail_hosting_id or the query object's options. The required identifiers and pagination/filtering fields are left entirely to the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('List'), identifies the resource ('email-import jobs'), and adds scoping ('for a mailbox'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling mailbox tools like list_mailboxes, which focus on mailboxes rather than import jobs.

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 the tool is for retrieving email-import job statuses, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There are no sibling email-import tools, so the use case is evident from the name, but guidance is minimal.

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