get_mailbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as what happens if the mailbox doesn't exist (error vs null), permissions needed, or side effects. For a read-only query, basic behavior like existence checking is implied but not explicit.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary, with no wasted content.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on error handling or return format, which would be valuable given the lack of annotations. It is minimally viable.

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?

The description adds meaning by listing the returned fields (ID, address, slug), which the input schema does not include. The schema has 100% coverage for the parameter 'project_id', but the description enriches the understanding of what information will be retrieved.

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 tool retrieves mailbox info (ID, address, slug) and can be used to check existence. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'mailbox info', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_mailbox or delete_mailbox.

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 explicitly says 'Use to check if a mailbox exists', providing a clear usage scenario. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling list gives context. For a simple read tool, this is sufficient.

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