list_mime_codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation and scopes results to MIME types for embedded attachments, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, authentication, or other limitations. This is adequate for a simple zero-parameter list tool, but not rich.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and scope. It lacks only an explicit pointer to check_mime_code for validating a single MIME type, which would strengthen sibling routing.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Schema description coverage is complete because the properties object is empty, matching the zero-parameter baseline.

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 ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('recognized MIME types') with a qualifier ('for embedded attachments'). This clearly distinguishes it from other sibling list_*_codes tools, which target different code sets like VAT categories, payment means, or allowance reasons.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over check_mime_code or the other code-list siblings. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, so the agent has to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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