Get Mailboxes

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'list of available mailboxes' is terse and does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it provide any details about the response structure, potential errors, or system behavior. Compared to the calibration examples, this is less informative than the 'list ALL calls' description that earned a 3, hence a 2 is appropriate.

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, short sentence that is directly to the point. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff. This is an example of excellent conciseness, not under-specification.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly sufficient. However, it could provide a bit more context, such as the type of data returned (e.g., mailbox IDs and names) or note that no authentication is required, which would help an agent determine if this tool meets their needs without making a separate call. Thus, it is adequate but not outstanding.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 is applied. The description does not need to add parameter context since none exist, and no additional information could meaningfully improve this dimension.

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 'Get list of available mailboxes' uses a specific verb 'Get', a clear resource 'mailboxes', and the qualifier 'available' indicates scope. It distinguishes itself well from sibling tools that deal with tickets and notes, making the function's purpose immediately obvious.

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 that this tool is used when you need a list of mailboxes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools that list mailboxes, the lack of explicit alternative guidance is mitigated, but the onboarding still relies on the agent inferring the obvious use case.

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