atxp-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it discloses the cost ('Cost: $0.01/call'), which isn't captured in the annotations. The annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, and the description doesn't contradict these hints. It provides useful additional information about financial implications.

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 two sentences that each earn their place: the first defines the core functionality, and the second provides usage context and cost information. It's front-loaded with the essential purpose and wastes no words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and its cost implications. However, it doesn't describe what happens after sending (e.g., success confirmation, error handling, or delivery status), which would be helpful given the absence of output schema. The annotations cover safety aspects well.

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 all three parameters (to, subject, body). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value.

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 ('Send an email'), identifies the resource ('from your ATXP agent email address to any recipient'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'atxp_email_inbox' (which presumably receives emails). It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement.

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 about when to use this tool ('Useful for sending automated notifications, reports, or messages on behalf of an AI agent'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It offers practical guidance without exclusions.

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