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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys the essential trait — this is a read-only validation/lookup with no side effects — and signals the specialized scope of the underlying list (embedded-attachment MIME types, a subset rather than the full registry). However, it is silent on matching semantics such as case sensitivity, exact-match behavior, and how malformed input is handled; the presence of an output schema covers return values but not these call-time behaviors.

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 with zero filler: it front-loads the action ('Check whether'), binds the parameter (*code*), names the resource (MIME type), and adds the scope qualifier ('for embedded attachments'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 that covers return values and low overall complexity, the description covers the essential ground: what the tool does, what to pass, and the specialized scope of the codelist. The remaining gaps — no explicit pointer to list_mime_codes and no exact-match or case-sensitivity semantics — are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with the lone parameter defined only as a bare string type, so the description must compensate. It does supply the core semantic: the code parameter is a MIME type string from the embedded-attachment registry. It leaves room for improvement by omitting format examples (e.g., 'application/pdf') or any matching constraints.

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 identifies the exact resource validated ('a recognized MIME type for embedded attachments'), clearly conveying a membership test. The qualifier 'for embedded attachments' narrows the domain and, with the tool name, differentiates it from sibling check tools for other codelists such as check_country_code and check_currency_code. It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly position itself against list_mime_codes, its natural sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the consistent list_X_codes / check_X_code sibling pattern: an agent can infer this tool validates a single code while list_mime_codes enumerates valid codes. However, the description never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives or mentions that list_mime_codes exists for enumeration, and it gives no exclusions or conditions.

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