sophos_list_mailboxes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, paginated, or mention any rate limits. The presence of pagination parameters hints at pagination but the description fails to confirm it.

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, concise sentence. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, e.g., specifying that it returns paginated results.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the output structure (e.g., fields returned) and behavior (e.g., default page size, sorting). It fails to provide this context, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond 'optional filters'. The parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the description's contribution is minimal.

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 'List', the resource 'email mailboxes', and the scope 'in a tenant' with optional filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mailbox (single) or create_mailbox.

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 listing mailboxes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_mailbox for a single mailbox or search tools. No exclusions or use-cases are mentioned.

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