assistantmail_get_me

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It does not mention authentication requirements (aside from implicit apiKey), read-only nature, or potential errors. It's a metadata retrieval, but no statement about what the response contains or if it's safe to call.

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?

One sentence, no waste, but slightly vague 'profile and tier metadata' could be more specific. Still, it is concise and front-loaded with the purpose.

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 metadata endpoint with one optional parameter and no complex output schema, the description is adequate but could benefit from noting that it requires authentication and what 'tier metadata' might include. It is not incomplete to the point of confusing.

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 0%, so the description should explain the apiKey parameter. It does not, but the parameter has a clear pattern 'amk_.*' implying it's an API key. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate given the single parameter.

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 it gets account profile and tier metadata, which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_mailboxes or get_usage, though not explicitly compared.

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 versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify that this is the top-level account info, distinct from get_usage or get_mailbox. No context on typical use cases or prerequisites.

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