Mailbox Settings

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable context about what specific configuration is retrieved (SMTP settings for email notifications) and the troubleshooting use case, which helps the agent understand the tool's practical application beyond the basic safety profile indicated by annotations.

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 consists of two well-structured sentences: the first explains what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it efficient and front-loaded with essential information.

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 read-only configuration retrieval tool with comprehensive annotations and no parameters, the description provides adequate context about what is retrieved and when to use it. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by specifying the type of configuration data returned (SMTP settings). Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotation coverage, this is reasonably complete.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than input parameters, which aligns with the zero-parameter design. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain.

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 specific action ('Get'), resource ('SMTP mailbox configuration'), and scope ('used for RAS email notifications'), including what information is retrieved ('server address, port, and sender details'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing specifically on email notification settings rather than other configuration aspects.

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 explicitly provides two concrete use cases: 'verify email notification settings' and 'troubleshoot notification delivery failures.' This gives clear guidance on when this tool should be used versus other configuration retrieval tools in the sibling list.

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