Mailboxen auflisten

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output format (lines of '<Konto>:<Mailbox>'), which is useful, and implies it's a read-only listing operation. However, it doesn't disclose ordering, pagination, or whether mailboxes are hierarchical, leaving some behavioral gaps for what should be a simple listing tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and output format, the second explains the purpose (finding exact names for use in other tools). Minor opportunity to be even more compact, but it's efficient with no wasted content.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, output format, and why to use it. The absence of return-type documentation is acceptable since the description itself defines the output shape. It's reasonably complete for a simple discovery tool.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema carries no semantic burden and the description is not required to add parameter meaning. The description appropriately explains what the tool returns (names in '<Konto>:<Mailbox>' format), which compensates for the absent parameters by explaining the output structure.

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 it lists all Apple Mail accounts and mailboxes as '<Konto>:<Mailbox>' lines, explaining the exact output format. It distinguishes its purpose as discovery of exact names. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_messages or get_message_body, though the output-format detail is strong.

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 tells the user this tool is used to find exact names for the 'mailboxes' parameter of other tools, which establishes a clear usage context. It doesn't list explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly distinct operations (saving, fetching bodies, flagging, searching), so the usage intent is well communicated.

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