List Granted Mailboxes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context that only granted mailboxes are searched, but says nothing about result format or pagination behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the usage cue front-loaded ahead of the scope and return-value note. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to convey purpose, scope, and usage timing, all of which it does. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though a note on what the returned IDs feed into would add polish.

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 the schema already documents q, limit, and cursor in detail. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the specific resource (mailboxes granted to this connection) and output (IDs to pass as mailbox_id), making the operation clear. It stops short of an explicit verb+resource phrasing like 'list granted mailboxes' but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

'Use this first when the token can access more than one mailbox' gives explicit sequencing guidance that helps an agent decide when to reach for this tool. It doesn't name a specific alternative (e.g. qubrics_mailbox_get_me) for the single-mailbox case, which keeps it below a 5.

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