get_smtp_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that credentials are not revealed, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not describe what is returned or any side effects, but the tool is likely read-only. The single safety note earns a moderate score.

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 one concise sentence, well-front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 simplicity with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic summary but lacks specifics on return fields or operational details. It is minimally complete but could be more informative.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description adds context by clarifying 'SMTP configuration' as the subject, earning a baseline of 4.

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 that the tool retrieves SMTP configuration information, using a specific verb and resource. It also adds a safety qualifier about credentials, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like verify_connection or test_smtp_config, so it's clear but without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 its siblings. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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