mailer_config_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the password is never returned, which is important behavioral transparency. However, it doesn't disclose auth/permission requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, though for a GET config tool the risk profile is lower. The password disclosure note is valuable and earns more than a 2.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then a specific detail (returned fields) and a critical caveat (password never returned). Zero waste, every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only config tool, the description is largely complete. It enumerates the returned fields since there's no output schema. It could mention error cases (e.g., if config not set up), but for this simplicity level the coverage is strong. The description adequately compensates for the missing output schema.

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 coverage (all params documented since there are none). The description enumerates the returned fields (host, port, encryption, username, from address/name, password-saved flag, last test time), which is useful since there's no output schema. This goes beyond what the empty schema provides, justifying above baseline. Not a 5 because it lacks return type/format 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get the organization's custom email sender (SMTP) configuration'. It specifies the resource (SMTP/mailer config) and plan scope (Business plan). Distinguishes from siblings like mailer_config_update and mailer_config_test, and from similar config tools (storage_config_get, pdf_template_config_get). Not a full 5 because it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 states the plan requirement (Business plan), which implies when it's applicable. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with mailer_config_update/test or mention when NOT to use it (e.g., not for free plans). It implies usage context but provides no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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