atxp-mcp

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

The annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive operation with open-world data. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the cost ($0.01/call) and specifying what information is returned (senders, subjects, dates), though it doesn't mention pagination or rate limits.

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 perfectly concise with three focused sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, describing the return value, explaining the use case, and disclosing cost. There's no wasted verbiage and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 read operation with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and includes cost information. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by specifying the return format.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter (limit with default value). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Check the inbox'), resource ('ATXP agent email address'), and scope ('Returns a list of recent emails with senders, subjects, and dates'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like atxp_email_send by focusing on reading rather than sending emails.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for AI agents that need to receive and process emails'), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It doesn't compare with other email-related tools beyond the obvious distinction from atxp_email_send.

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