Tester l'accès à Mail

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool is non-destructive ('sans toucher aux messages' – touches no messages) and confirms it is a safe access check. This gives complete behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentences with no waste. The first sentence states purpose and key safety property; the second provides usage guidance and output interpretation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 test tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains purpose, behavior, result interpretation, and context within the sibling set.

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?

No parameters exist, so description adds no param info beyond schema. Baseline of 4 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage and zero parameters; the description provides context for the tool's function.

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 tests whether Claude can control the Mail app, emphasizing no message interaction. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actual mail operations.

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 indicates use in case of problems and explains how to interpret the response (success means access OK, error indicates next steps). It does not explicitly list when to avoid using it or alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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