get_smtp_configs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns SMTP configuration information in JSON format, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what specific 'common email services' are included. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second specifies the return format. There's no wasted text, and both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and returns more distinctly), but it's efficient overall.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and the return format, which is helpful since an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained). However, it lacks context on usage, behavioral details, and sibling differentiation, making it incomplete for optimal agent guidance. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.

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, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none. It appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, so it meets the baseline for a zero-parameter tool. No additional compensation is needed.

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 purpose: '获取常用邮箱的SMTP配置信息' (Get SMTP configuration information for common email services). It specifies both the verb (get) and resource (SMTP configurations), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_config' which might retrieve different configuration types. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. There are sibling tools like 'send_email' and 'send_email_with_custom_config' that might relate to SMTP usage, but the description doesn't mention when this configuration retrieval is needed (e.g., before sending emails, for setup purposes) or when to choose other tools. No explicit or implied usage context is provided.

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