infomaniak_list_mailing_lists

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

Annotations readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint already indicate safe, read-only behavior. The description adds slight context about the scope (configured on a mail hosting) but no further behavioral details such as return format or pagination. It does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the verb 'List' and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 read-only list tool with one self-explanatory parameter and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit usage context but is sufficient for basic 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly references the parameter by mentioning 'a mail hosting,' but does not explicitly explain mail_hosting_id or provide format guidance. The parameter name is self-explanatory, so the gap is moderate.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('mailing lists') and adds the scope 'configured on a mail hosting.' It is unambiguous but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_mailboxes, though the resource is distinct.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to list mailing lists for a mail hosting) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. For a simple list tool, the implied usage is acceptable but not elaborate.

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