check_mime_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check whether' signals a non-mutating validation operation, but the description does not explicitly state behavior for unrecognized codes, whether it is a pure predicate, or any access limitations. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds only minimal behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The action ('Check'), subject ('code'), and qualification ('recognized MIME type for embedded attachments') are all front-loaded and directly useful.

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 one-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning completely enough to call the tool. It is slightly incomplete only in that it does not point to list_mime_codes for enumeration or describe how unrecognized codes are handled, but these are minor gaps for such a simple tool.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It clearly identifies the single parameter as a MIME type used for embedded attachments, going well beyond the generic string type in the schema. It does not provide examples or an explicit format, but for a single simple parameter this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('recognized MIME type for embedded attachments'), making the tool's operation unambiguous. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools that list code sets or validate other kinds of codes, such as check_payment_means_code or check_vat_category_code.

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 clearly implies the tool is for validating a single MIME code, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus list_mime_codes or other check_*_code siblings. The intended usage is inferable from the name and wording, but no direct guidance or exclusions are provided.

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