get_email_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values (has_credentials, sender email) and provides an actionable instruction if not configured. This gives the agent a clear understanding of the tool's behavior and expected follow-up, even without explicitly stating it is read-only, which the verb 'check' implies.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return values, and usage guidance. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and what to do based on the result. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in context.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters, which adds appropriate value without redundancy.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Check if email credentials are configured.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like save_email_settings, which is the setter companion, and from unrelated tools like get_status. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this before any email-related operation to verify setup.' This is clear context, but it does not mention explicit alternatives or when not to use the tool, as the 'when-not' is inferred by its role. Still, the usage direction is strong.

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