get_email_retention

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states the return value (retention period) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, or data freshness. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is short but includes an unexplained tag '[query]' that may not add value. It is generally concise, but the tag could be seen as noise. Every sentence should earn its place; the tag does not clearly contribute.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks details about the return format (e.g., units, structure). It does not explain what the 'retention period' looks like. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is adequate.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter ('id'). The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: viewing the email retention period. It specifies the resource (store emails) and returns the configured period. It distinguishes from sibling tools by using a verb ('get') and specifying the subject ('email retention'), but does not explicitly differentiate from other get tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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