mailer_config_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it sends a live test message (a network/email side effect) and clarifies the override behavior and default recipient. However, it doesn't disclose whether this causes a sent email in history/logs, auth requirements, or what success/failure response looks like. For a test tool that sends real email, more behavioral context would be valuable.

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?

Three sentences that are direct and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. No wasted words, but the third sentence about recipient defaults could arguably be merged or clarified. Overall efficient and well-organized.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters with 13% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and the override/default-recipient behavior but leaves gaps: what the test actually validates, how results are returned, and whether this sends a permanent email that appears in logs. For a multi-config test tool with zero annotation support, it's adequate but leans thin on edge case behavior.

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 description coverage is only 13%, so the description must compensate. Only testEmail has a schema-level description. The description explains that parameters override saved configuration and that testEmail defaults to fromAddress, adding meaning to the host/port/username/password/fromName/fromAddress/encryption params. However, it doesn't detail the format/meaning of each parameter beyond the override concept, leaving 7 of 8 params mostly only defined by their names.

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 it sends a test message through the custom email sender to verify SMTP settings. It identifies a specific verb (send) and resource (test message via email sender). While there's a sibling storage_config_test and einvoice_config_test, the description's SMTP verification purpose is distinct enough to not need explicit sibling differentiation, though it could more explicitly separate itself from those.

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 it uses saved configuration unless overridden by parameters, and specifies the recipient behavior ('Sends to testEmail, or to the from address if omitted'). This gives clear when-to-use context for verifying SMTP settings. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the test+verify purpose is clear and self-contained.

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