get_inbox_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds a valuable limitation by stating the password is not returned, which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure. The verb 'zeigt an' also implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly rule out side effects.

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 sentence, front-loads the primary action, and uses a parenthetical to list relevant details. Every word contributes meaning; there is no filler or repetition.

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 parameterless configuration getter, the description gives enough context about what the tool returns and even notes a security-relevant omission. With no output schema, it does not specify the exact response structure, but the listed fields are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected output.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents everything there is to know about inputs. With no parameters, the baseline is 4; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('zeigt an') and a clear resource ('aktuelle Serverkonfiguration'), then enumerates the key contents (Host, User, INBOX-Ordner). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that operate on emails rather than configuration.

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 config-focused purpose implies when to use the tool, and the sibling names make it clear this is not for email operations. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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