radmail-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavior that the tool only drafts and never sends. This is critical but does not cover other aspects like error handling or required permissions. The description adds value beyond the basic function name.

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 at two sentences with no wasted words. The key action and limitation are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and a critical constraint. It could briefly describe the return value (e.g., 'Returns text of the draft'), but the current description is mostly sufficient.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states the action (draft a reply) and the resource (a thread). It explicitly distinguishes itself by stating it 'does not and cannot send it', which differentiates it from any potential send tool among siblings.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to draft a reply) and clarifies that it does not send, implying the human should review before sending. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It indicates a read-only 'extract' operation and specifies output fields, but lacks information on scope (e.g., does 'correspondence' mean the current conversation or all?), sorting, pagination, or empty results. This is adequate but has gaps.

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 sentence of 18 words, directly stating the action, scope, and output. There is no fluff, and the most critical information is 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?

With no annotations, output schema, or parameters, the description carries full burden. It covers the core functionality and output fields, but omits context like the exact scope of 'correspondence' and how this tool relates to siblings. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. No additional param detail is necessary.

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 'Extract' and clearly identifies the resource as 'open commitments in the correspondence' with directionality ('owed by you and owed to you') and outputs ('who and by-when'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' (generic query) and 'list_right_now' (likely a general list).

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 use when needing open commitments, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives among sibling tools. For instance, it doesn't clarify when to use this versus 'search' or 'list_right_now' for commitment-related queries.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the lane returns ('most recent and most important messages') but omits details like ordering, filtering criteria, read-only nature, pagination, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's action and content. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or filler.

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 (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is serviceable but leaves ambiguity about the exact return type (messages vs. other objects) and lacks details on scope or ordering. Adequate for a minimal tool but not fully complete.

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 schema has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter information but correctly focuses on purpose. Baseline 4 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage and no parameters to describe.

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 clearly states the tool returns only the 'Right Now' lane, which is a specific subset of important messages. It uses a unique verb-resource pairing ('Return ... lane') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search' and 'triage_inbox' by focusing on a dedicated prioritized list.

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 when to use (to view urgent messages) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings like 'list_commitments' or 'draft_reply' are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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

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

Despite no annotations, description discloses result ordering, match attribution, and read-only nature in real mode. Could mention if sandbox is also read-only, but overall strong behavioral 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?

Two sentences, efficient, front-loaded with core purpose, no redundant phrasing.

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 search tool with 2 params and no output schema, description covers purpose, usage contexts, result format, and ranking. No missing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining result format (match location, relevance ranking) but does not add new parameter-specific details beyond 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?

Clearly states it finds a message by sender, subject, or content, and describes result ranking and match highlighting. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., draft_reply, triage_inbox) which are not search-related.

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?

Explicitly describes two usage contexts: sandbox (demo inbox) and real (with API key, read-only, with filters). Does not provide explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear and no conflicting sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's behavior: ranking and returning categories with commitments. However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies any state or if it is read-only, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 verbose sentence with multiple clauses, making it less concise. While it front-loads the core action, it could be shortened without losing meaning.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of the returned data (categorized items with commitments). However, it does not detail the exact structure or format, leaving some uncertainty.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: ranking a mailbox on importance and urgency, and returning categorized items with commitment details. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_commitments and list_right_now by combining prioritization and commitment visibility.

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 usage for triaging inbox but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or list_commitments. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the burden. It states the output is a plain English explanation of ranking signals but does not explicitly confirm the tool is read-only or has no side effects. 'Explain' implies a safe operation, but more detail on behavior would be beneficial.

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, well-structured sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core action and details without waste.

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 simple explanation tool with no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of the output (plain English explanation of signals). It covers the essential purpose but could more explicitly describe the return format (e.g., a string or structured text).

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides (message_id is an ID from triage_inbox).

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 ('explain') and clearly identifies the resource ('why a given message was surfaced') and the key signals (sender, urgency, commitment). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like 'triage_inbox' (listing) and 'list_commitments' (listing commitments).

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 the tool is for understanding ranking signals but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., after listing messages in 'triage_inbox'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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