list_mailboxes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the output fields but omits behavioral traits such as whether it supports pagination, ordering, or error handling. As a list operation, it is implicitly read-only, but no side effects are mentioned.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and lists the key output fields efficiently. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and major output fields. It lacks mention of ordering, pagination, or error scenarios, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward list operation.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'project_id', and the description does not add new meaning beyond the schema's own description. The phrase 'List a project's mailboxes' reinforces the parameter's role but does not provide additional semantic detail.

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 lists a project's mailboxes and enumerates the specific fields returned, such as default-role metadata, readiness fields, footer-policy fields, mailbox_settings, and next_actions. It distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like get_mailbox (single mailbox) and set_mailbox_defaults.

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 instructs 'Use before choosing or repairing email defaults,' providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context implies it is a preparatory step for mailbox management.

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