Inxmail MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Explicitly states 'Read-only' (critical safety trait) and describes return payload ('error message, timestamp, and context') compensating for missing output schema. Minor gap: doesn't mention idempotency or error conditions.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return values (compensating for no output schema), prerequisite workflow, post-action workflow, and behavioral safety. Front-loaded with the specific action.

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?

Appropriately complete for a simple single-parameter tool. Compensates for missing annotations by stating 'Read-only' and for missing output schema by describing return fields. Sibling relationships clarify the complete error log workflow.

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% ('Error log ID'), establishing baseline 3. Description references 'by its ID' reinforcing the parameter usage but doesn't add format constraints, validation rules, or examples beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States specific verb ('Get'), resource ('error log entry'), and scope ('full details by its ID'). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'list_error_logs' (finding entries vs getting details) and 'mark_error_log_read' (retrieving vs acknowledging).

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use this after finding an entry via list_error_logs' establishes prerequisites, and 'Use mark_error_log_read to acknowledge it after review' defines the post-action step. Clear when-to-use relative to siblings.

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