mail_permissions_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'diagnose' and 'optional settings guidance' without detailing side effects (e.g., opening system settings might require user interaction), permissions, or what happens when 'open_full_disk_access' is true. The parameter schema adds some transparency, but overall behavioral insight is minimal.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, with no superfluous words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. For a simple tool, this is adequate, but more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve clarity.

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 tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete but lacks details about what 'diagnose' entails, what output or feedback the agent can expect, and whether the tool is safe to call without side effects. The context is functional but could be more informative.

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% and the parameter description in the schema is clear: 'Open System Settings to Full Disk Access pane.' The tool description adds 'optional settings guidance,' which loosely maps to the parameter but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Diagnose Full Disk Access and optional settings guidance' provides a general sense of the tool's function but is vague. It does not clearly differentiate from siblings like mail_health_check, which could also involve checking permissions. The parameter hints at opening system settings, but the core purpose is not precisely stated.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to call this tool, or what distinguishes it from other mail tools. An agent lacks context for appropriate invocation.

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