check_mime_code

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

With no annotations, the description itself must communicate behavior. 'Check whether' implies a read-only validation, but it does not disclose whether the lookup is local or external, or any normalization/case-sensitivity behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundant 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 one-required-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the input semantics and the predicate being tested. It only lacks an explicit relationship to list_mime_codes for retrieving accepted values.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that the one string parameter is a MIME type for embedded attachments, which is essential, but it provides no examples, format guidance, or pointer to valid values.

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 whether') and a precise resource: whether a code is a recognized MIME type for embedded attachments. This distinguishes it from other check_* siblings like check_vatex_code or check_eas_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 type of code being validated is clear from the description, so an agent knows when to call it. However, it does not explicitly direct users to list_mime_codes for enumerating valid values or state exclusions versus the many sibling check/list tools.

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