stalwart_troubleshoot_dmarc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It states the action but does not explain side effects, whether it is read-only, what 'live' means, or what the output structure looks like. The description lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 exceptionally concise: one clear purpose sentence followed by a structured parameter list. There is no redundant or extraneous text, and each line 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?

The description covers the core operation and parameter meanings, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. However, it lacks usage context such as when to invoke this tool, what to expect from the results, and any limitations or prerequisites. This makes it minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 Args section adds meaningful definitions for each parameter (e.g., 'message: full RFC 5322 message' and 'remote_ip: connecting IP'). This compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage and helps the agent understand exactly what values are expected.

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 opens with 'Run a live DMARC/SPF/DKIM/ARC troubleshoot on a message,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools, most of which handle account/domain management, by focusing on message authentication troubleshooting.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools like classify_spam, so the usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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