mailX tools

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it 'attempts to connect and authenticate' and 'optionally sends a test email to verify full sending capability', which clarifies the tool's operational behavior and optional destructive action (sending email).

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently convey optional extended functionality. Zero wasted words - every phrase earns its place by adding distinct value about the tool's behavior.

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 connectivity testing tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It clarifies the two-phase nature (connection/auth test plus optional email sending) which isn't captured in structured fields. The main gap is lack of output format information (no output schema), but the description compensates reasonably given the tool's straightforward purpose.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description mentions 'optionally sends a test email' which hints at the optional 'from_email' and 'to_email' parameters, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('test', 'connect', 'authenticate', 'sends') and resource ('SMTP server connection'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on SMTP connectivity testing rather than DNS lookups, BIMI checks, or other email-related diagnostics.

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 usage context ('test an SMTP server connection') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'smtp_finder' or 'imap_check'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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