cipp_list_mailboxes

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. The simple verb 'List' gives no insight into side effects or data volume.

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 extremely concise with only 5 words. It avoids verbosity, but it might be too terse, omitting necessary context. Still, it is well-structured and 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?

Given that the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description should provide more context about return values, filtering behavior, and scope. The current description is insufficient for an agent to confidently use this tool without additional information.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 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?

Description states 'List mailboxes in a tenant' which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not specify the scope of mailboxes (e.g., all types) nor differentiate from the sibling tool cipp_list_mailbox_permissions. The schema provides the type enum, but the description itself lacks this nuance.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as cipp_list_users or cipp_list_mailbox_permissions. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for usage.

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