access-shared-mailbox

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming it is a read operation. However, it does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, such as error conditions (e.g., access denied) or default behavior (e.g., returns only inbox). The parameter schema fills in some gaps, but the description itself is minimal.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, making it efficient and scannable. It earns its place without unnecessary words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description omits what the returned data looks like (e.g., email summaries). The parameter schema covers input well, but the lack of output context leaves some incompleteness. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is minimally adequate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only contextualizes the shared mailbox concept but does not elaborate on individual parameters like `folder` or `outputVerbosity`.

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 action ('Read emails') and the specific resource ('shared mailbox'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read-email' which likely targets the primary mailbox. The verb and resource are precise, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for shared mailboxes via the phrase 'from a shared mailbox you have access to', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read-email' or 'search-emails'. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or selection criteria.

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