list_mime_codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a listing/read operation and adds the 'embedded attachments' scope, but it does not state whether results are exhaustive, ordered, or language-dependent; the missing details are minor for a parameterless list.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action, resource, and scope are presented in that order. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the exact domain ('embedded attachments') and the canonical nature of the list. It only lacks explicit guidance about when to choose this over check_mime_code.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to explain; the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter syntax, but none is needed.

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 action ('List'), a concrete resource ('recognized MIME types'), and a scope ('for embedded attachments'), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It also reads distinctly from the sibling check_mime_code, which is the finding-versus-validating counterpart.

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 does not say when to call this tool instead of check_mime_code or any other list_* sibling. The intended use is only implied by the word 'recognized', so an agent receives no explicit routing guidance.

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