Get Sieve script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only retrieval operation through the verb 'Get', but does not disclose what happens if no script exists, whether any special permissions are needed, or the format of the returned script. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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, well-structured sentence. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the Sieve filtering script') and includes a concise clarifying parenthetical. 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (only one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context about the resource and the standard involved. It could be more complete by mentioning the return value or default behavior when no script exists, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'address' as 'The full mailbox address' (100% coverage). The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Sieve filtering script of a mailbox', with a helpful parenthetical explaining what Sieve is (server-side email filtering, RFC 5228). This distinguishes it from siblings like update_mailbox_sieve and other getters.

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 implies when to use it (to retrieve a mailbox's Sieve script) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like update_mailbox_sieve or get_mailbox. The RFC reference adds context but not usage direction.

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