trace_email_filter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'test' which implies non-destructive action, but it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, what the return format is, or whether any side effects occur. The description provides minimal behavioral detail beyond the core verb.

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 14 words that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action verb, contains no filler, and every word earns its place. Appropriate for a simple tool.

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 is simple with only two parameters, both fully described in the schema. The description explains the core function and what the user will see ('which rules match'). Although there is no output schema and the description could be more explicit about the result format, it is adequate for a diagnostic tool of this complexity.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters ('Test message content to trace through filters' and 'Email account (user@domain.com)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema contains, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Test'), the resource ('email filters'), and the expected outcome ('see which rules match'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_email_filters and delete_email_filter by focusing on simulation/testing rather than managing filters.

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 this tool: when you need to check how a message would be processed by existing filter rules. It doesn't name alternatives or explicitly state when-not-to-use, but the context is clear and sufficiently differentiates from related tools.

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