mail_setup_status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it does not read passwords, contact the mailbox, or run another storage probe, and it explains what a blocked result means and what action is required.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds usage, exclusions, and error handling. It is a bit dense but each sentence carries useful information without obvious waste.

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 no-argument diagnostic tool with rich read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to call it, what it explicitly avoids, and how to handle a blocked result. Nothing essential appears to be missing.

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, so the baseline is 4. No additional parameter meaning is needed or expected.

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 states a specific read operation: local login progress, loaded connectorVersion, and MCP execution context. It does not name a sibling tool explicitly, but its scope exclusion ('Does not contact the mailbox') implicitly differentiates it from mail_* siblings.

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?

It gives clear triggers: after an upgrade to compare connectorVersion and detect a stale process, and after the user finishes the private form. It also gives failure-mode guidance ('A blocked result requires fixing the MCP host execution context, not repeating sandbox-shell login'), though it does not name alternative tools.

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