listConnections

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it reads local configuration without signing in, and it warns that localDataAvailable does not imply complete or up-to-date mail. Those details help an agent interpret and trust the result correctly.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage and field semantics in a compact sequence. Every sentence carries actionable information, with no redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough. It explains when to call it, how to use its output, and an important caveat about local data coverage.

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 no input parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently minimal and the schema has nothing to document. The description instead explains key output field meanings, which is useful but outside the parameter dimension.

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 the configured mailboxes.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining that it should be called first when the mailbox is unknown and that its name field feeds the 'connection' argument of every other tool.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call first when the mailbox to use is not known yet.' It also redirects agents to listFolders and syncStatus for coverage inspection, which clarifies an important alternative path.

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