List mailboxes

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds that each mailbox's readiness is reported, but it does not describe ordering, empty results, or other behavioral details beyond the safety profile.

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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. Every part contributes useful information and nothing is redundant.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with annotations, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: it lists configured mailboxes and reports readiness. Some minor return-shape details are omitted, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than documenting nonexistent inputs.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: list configured mailboxes, plus the returned readiness status. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as list_folders, but the mailbox-level scope is still clear.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: use this to discover configured mailboxes and their readiness. There is no explicit guidance about when to use it instead of list_folders or other sibling tools.

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