ClawAIMail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the read operation ('Get') and the mutation behavior ('auto-creates one if none exists'), which is crucial for understanding side effects. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers core behavior adequately.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action ('Get your agent's email address') and adds critical nuance ('auto-creates one if none exists') without any waste. Every word serves a clear purpose.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it states purpose, behavior, and auto-creation. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from hints about return format (e.g., string) or error cases, leaving minor gaps.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter info is needed. The description doesn't add param details, but that's unnecessary here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 specific action ('Get your agent's email address') and resource ('email address'), with the additional nuance of auto-creation if needed. It distinguishes from siblings like 'account_info' (general info), 'create_inbox' (manual creation), and 'read_email' (message content).

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 usage context: when you need the agent's email, especially if it might not exist yet. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'account_info' (which might include email) or 'create_inbox' (for manual creation), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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