Atomic Mail documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., return format, side effects) but does not contradict annotations. Since the bar is lower with annotations present, a 3 is appropriate for adding only usage context, not new behavior.

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 dense yet efficient: it leads with the core advice ('call early and often'), lists topics, and gives two targeted ordering tips. Every sentence carries weight, with no 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?

For a help tool with no output schema, this description fully equips an agent: it enumerates topics, explains how to omit the topic, and ties usage to sibling tools. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds a concrete list of valid topics and special handling for 'readme', exceeding the schema's bare 'omit for overview'. This meaningfully enriches the single parameter's semantics.

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 states the tool provides built-in agent docs and lists concrete topics, making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly routing usage (e.g., 'use presets before jmap_request'), so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('call early and often, even if you know JMAP') and prescriptive ordering relative to siblings ('use presets before jmap_request, cron after register, troubleshooting when stuck'). This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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