imap_list_mailboxes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. The verb 'list' implies read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, safety, or whether data is modified. It adds no behavioral detail beyond the bare action.

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, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It is perfectly sized for a simple list operation, with the action and scope front-loaded.

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?

The tool has only one optional parameter, an output schema is present, and the operation is a straightforward list. The description adequately conveys the purpose, and the output schema covers return details. It does not, however, explain that the list is scoped to the given account ID, though that is implied.

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?

The account_id parameter is fully documented in the input schema with a default value of 'default'. The description only says 'for an account' and adds no supplementary meaning to the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'list' and names the resource 'mailboxes' for an account, making the action unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like imap_list_accounts or imap_mailbox_status, but the resource is clear.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of related operations such as listing accounts or checking mailbox status, and no exclusions. The agent receives no contextual direction beyond the description itself.

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