List Mime Codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only listing operation through the verb 'List' and scopes the result to 'recognized MIME types for embedded attachments,' but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the list is static, sorted, paginated, or subject to any restrictions.

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 focused sentence of eight words with no filler. It leads with the verb 'List,' immediately stating the action, and every word ('recognized,' 'MIME types,' 'embedded attachments') adds relevant scoping.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it does not explain how this list tool relates to its sibling check_mime_code or whether the MIME types come from a specific standard or codelist. The output schema covers return values, yet the description omits the broader context needed for an agent to decide when to call it.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete and the description correctly implies no arguments are needed. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or unnecessary parameter information.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List') and resource ('recognized MIME types'), scoped further by 'for embedded attachments.' It is specific enough to be understood on its own and is implicitly distinct from the sibling check_mime_code, though it does not explicitly name that 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_mime_code. There is no mention of 'use this to get the full list' or 'use check_mime_code to validate a single code,' leaving the agent to infer the differentiation solely 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.