meineba_postfach

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping fact (this returns folder contents, param selects which folder), but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or how many messages come back.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the folder clarification in a tight parenthetical. Nothing extraneous, though it is arguably too terse to do more than state the action.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials and annotations cover safety. It is still missing any statement about pagination/size limits and any disambiguation from meineba_postfach_read, which an agent choosing among postfach tools would want.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter load. It does list all four folder values and translates the default ("erhalten = inbox"), which adds meaning beyond the bare enum, but gesendet/entwurf/geloescht are left untranslated and the default's behavior is not explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List messages in the user's BA Postfach") and unpacks the folder concept with a concrete example. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like meineba_postfach_send or meineba_postfach_attachment, but it never explicitly contrasts with meineba_postfach_read, which is the nearest neighbor.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as meineba_postfach_read for opening a single message. Usage is only inferable from the verb "List".

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