mailer_config_test

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it actually sends a message, uses saved configuration by default, and falls back to the from address when testEmail is omitted.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the configuration and recipient rules. No wasted text.

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 description covers the core action, configuration source, and recipient fallback for an 8-parameter optional-override tool. It does not describe failure behavior or provide enough parameter detail to fully compensate for the sparse schema, but annotations cover the side-effect profile.

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 carry most parameter meaning. It explains that parameters can override saved configuration and clarifies testEmail fallback, but it leaves host, port, fromName, password, username, encryption, and fromAddress semantics undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource: send a test message through the custom email sender to verify SMTP settings. This clearly distinguishes it from configuration-management siblings such as mailer_config_get and mailer_config_update.

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 implies the tool is for validating SMTP configuration and explains that saved settings are used unless parameters override them. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving usage context only implied.

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