mail_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'read-only database access' but does not clarify if the tool itself is read-only, safe to run repeatedly, or what happens on failure. The agent is left guessing about safety and side effects.

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 sentence, efficiently listing the verification areas. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Verify'. While effective, it could use slight structuring (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and output expectations. It is adequate but leaves the agent wanting more for informed invocation.

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 coverage is 100%: the 'include_paths' parameter is already described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about this parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Verify' and specifies distinct resource areas: server, platform, Mail store discovery, and read-only database access. It fully distinguishes from sibling tools which are data retrieval or permission check tools, not diagnostic ones.

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 use for health checking, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use, when not to use, or alternatives. Given the sibling tools are unrelated, the context is adequate but not proactive.

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