infomaniak_list_service_auto_replies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds 'service-level' scope but does not disclose pagination, filtering, or response structure. With annotations covering safety, 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?

A single sentence with no unnecessary words. The key information is front-loaded: 'List service-level auto-reply configurations'.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and annotations plus an output schema provide additional context. The description adequately covers the purpose, though it could explicitly mention that it returns multiple configurations.

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%, but there is only one parameter (mail_hosting_id) whose purpose is inferable from the description ('for a mail hosting'). However, the description does not explicitly map the parameter, so it adds only partial meaning.

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 (service-level auto-reply configurations) with a scope (for a mail hosting). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'infomaniak_manage_mailbox_auto_reply' by specifying 'service-level'.

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 usage context: you need a mail hosting ID. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the verb 'list' and resource scope provide clear context.

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