get_work_mode

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is read-only, which is a genuine safety trait, but says nothing about whether it reads local state only, what the mode values mean, or what the 'allowed MCP actions' list implies for behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the key subject (the active work mode) plus the safety tag are both front-loaded. Nothing is padded.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description effectively enumerates what comes back (the active mode and its allowed MCP actions) plus its safety profile. Only the enumeration of possible mode values is missing, which is a minor gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool 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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and a precise resource ('active local AI-mail work mode and its allowed MCP actions'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling set_work_mode. It stops short of naming that counterpart explicitly, so the differentiation is implied by the get/set pairing rather than spelled out.

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 'Read-only' tag implies this is the safe inspection call you use before set_work_mode, but the description never states when to use it, what prompts it, or names the alternative. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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