mailbox_get_threads

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses ordering behavior but fails to mention pagination specifics, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with empty folders. The behavioral disclosure 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?

A single 16-word sentence that is direct and free of redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description is acceptable but incomplete. It lacks details on return values, pagination behavior, and error handling. It provides a basic understanding but misses context needed for reliable usage.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. While the schema descriptions are adequate, the description does not elaborate on how start/limit affect results or what constitutes a 'thread'.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'mail threads', and specifies the folder type and ordering by most recent message. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like mailbox_get_thread (singular) and mailbox_get_thread_messages.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mailbox_get_thread for a single thread or mailbox_get_thread_messages for messages within a thread. The description does not mention any preconditions or exclusions.

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