list_mailbox_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action (list) without noting that it is read-only, requiring authentication (api_token), or any pagination or filtering behavior. This is minimal and leaves the agent to infer safety and side effects.

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, short sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, earning every word.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it: no mention of authentication, return value structure, or potential errors. An output schema exists, but its content is unknown, and without annotations the description must do more to convey the tool's behavior.

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%, and the description adds no parameter details. mailbox_id is implied by 'a mailbox' but not explicitly explained, and api_token is entirely unmentioned. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('List') and resource ('members who can see a mailbox'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_mailboxes (lists mailboxes) and list_members (lists all members). It precisely identifies the tool's function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_members or list_mailboxes. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate.

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