adm_mailboxes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which provides some transparency. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination, result limits, or sorting behavior, which would be useful for an agent. The core behavior of listing is stated, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loads the primary action of the tool. Every word contributes 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 list tool with one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The tool has no annotations, so the description could have added a bit more context about expected return format or any operational caveats. It's sufficient but not rich.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter mail_id. The description itself doesn't add parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema handles the documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all mailboxes/redirects for a mail domain'. It clearly identifies the output of the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools beyond the domain-specific context, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 used to retrieve mailboxes for a given domain. It provides the context of needing a mail_id from adm_mail_domains via the schema, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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