voidmail_account_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the response includes whether a mail encryption key exists on this machine, which is a meaningful local-state fact an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first and the notable extra detail (encryption key presence) follows within the same sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden to indicate what comes back; it names one concrete field (encryption key presence) but does not enumerate the rest of the account metadata. For a no-argument, read-only info tool this is largely sufficient, with only minor incompleteness.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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 (get information about the current agent email account) and adds a concrete scope detail (encryption key presence on this machine). It is clearly distinct from sibling read tools like voidmail_list_aliases, voidmail_sending_limits, or voidmail_get_stats, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call for account-level metadata, and the lack of parameters makes it unambiguous how to invoke. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., versus voidmail_policy or voidmail_sending_limits) and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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