assistantmail_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that the operation is read-only by saying 'Returns', which rules out destructive behavior. However, it does not clarify whether the tool performs a live health check, what metadata fields are included, or how failures are reported.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter health/metadata 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 description is minimally viable: it names the tool's purpose well enough for an agent to select and invoke it. Yet without an output schema, it leaves the exact contents of 'metadata' ambiguous, so an agent cannot fully predict what the response will contain.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because no compensation is needed.

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 clear verb ('Returns') and names a specific resource ('AssistantMail MCP server and API endpoint metadata'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools, which all operate on mailboxes, messages, or policies rather than server-level metadata.

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 used to inspect AssistantMail server/endpoint metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when an alternative would be better. There is no direct competing sibling, so the lack of exclusions is acceptable, but usage context is only implicit.

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