get_email_signature

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 states what the tool does but doesn't mention permissions needed, error conditions (beyond a vague 'error' reference), or whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args and Returns sections are structured, but the Example is redundant (repeating the tool name) and could be more informative, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameter, but lacks details on error handling, sibling tool differentiation, and behavioral context, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema. It explains the parameter 'signature_name' and its default, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't compensate fully—e.g., it doesn't clarify if the name is case-sensitive or what happens if the signature doesn't exist. The baseline is 3 since the schema lacks descriptions, but the tool's description only partially fills the gap.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('saved email signature'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_email_signatures', which might retrieve multiple signatures versus this tool retrieving a specific one.

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 like 'list_email_signatures' or other email-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing existing signatures) or exclusions, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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