mailu_list_aliases

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the tool as a read operation listing aliases, but omits potential details such as authentication prerequisites, rate limits, or response format. Given the simplicity of a parameter-less list, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 is both concise and front-loaded, delivering the core purpose immediately without extraneous content. Every word serves a purpose.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is mostly complete. It conveys what the tool does and its scope. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination, result count, or that the list applies to all domains the user has access to. With no output schema, a minor mention of return type could be beneficial.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the schema coverage is 100% with nothing to describe.

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 explicitly states 'list all aliases (redirects) across all domains,' providing a clear verb, resource, and scope. It efficiently distinguishes from the sibling tool 'mailu_list_aliases_by_domain' which targets specific domains.

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 tool's purpose implies use for fetching all aliases regardless of domain, but no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'mailu_list_aliases_by_domain' or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not clarified.

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