missive_help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by noting safety guarantees: 'it cannot send email or delete records'. This adds context beyond the annotation, making the tool's behavior transparent. No other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, return format) are disclosed, but for a documentation tool this is sufficient.

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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates purpose and content. It is front-loaded with the main action and then elaborates with specifics. It could be slightly more concise, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity. A 4 reflects good conciseness with minimal waste.

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 enum parameter, readOnly annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, topic range, safety guarantees, and typical use case. It does not detail the return format or structure of documentation, but that is reasonable for a help tool. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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% (the only parameter 'topic' is fully described with enum, default, and description). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely lists some topics in the text. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 returns embedded documentation about the Missive MCP server, listing specific content areas like overview, architecture, tool inventory, and safety guarantees. It also gives a concrete use case: 'understand the project or answer what version do I have?' This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform CRUD operations.

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 says to call this tool to understand the project or check the version, which provides clear guidance on when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but given the sibling tools are all action-oriented, the context is sufficient. A 4 is appropriate as it lacks explicit exclusion phrases but still offers strong implicit guidance.

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