Get conversion diagnostics

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and adds value beyond them by stating no permanent files are written and enumerating the return-state vocabulary (normal/degraded/review_recommended) plus conditional keys. Falls short of disclosing limits, cost, or when 'degraded' should trigger a re-run.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return contract; no filler. The long enumeration of return keys is slightly heavy given an output schema exists, but it is organized and readable.

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?

Return values are well covered even though an output schema exists, and safety context is adequate. However, for a tool with 13 parameters and zero schema descriptions, omitting any parameter guidance leaves a genuine gap an agent would hit when deciding preset/thread/strip behavior.

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?

Thirteen parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them — preset, thread_mode, thread_order, and the eight strip_*/include_* flags are opaque. The only indirect hint is stripped_images appearing conditionally when images were removed, which barely signals the stripping flags.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Inspect email quality and structure') and differentiates from the convert_* siblings by noting it does not write permanent files. A clear read-only inspection tool, though it doesn't name the siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives two concrete situations: assess conversion quality before committing, or troubleshoot problematic .eml files. This implicitly routes agents away from convert_eml when they only want inspection, but no alternative is named outright.

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