List Mailbox Imports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results include 'status and counters', but lacks details on pagination, ordering, or the definition of 'recent'. It provides modest additional context.

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?

Single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. Fully front-loaded and concise.

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 the tool's simplicity, existing annotations, and output schema, the description adequately states the core function. It mentions key return elements. However, it could briefly note ordering or limit defaults for completeness.

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 schema describes the 'id' parameter as 'ShipMail resource ID.' The description implies the ID refers to a mailbox, adding slight context but not significant extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('imports'), specifies scope ('for a mailbox'), and indicates returned data ('status and counters'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create/get/cancel/undo import.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_mailbox_import, list_mailbox_inbox_threads). Usage is implied but not directly addressed.

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