Inspect İTÜ Mail Attachment

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: content is size-bounded, processed in memory without execution, and untrusted (an injection warning). It stops short of stating error behavior for oversized or unsupported attachments.

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 tight sentence with the key scope constraint first and no filler; every clause (source tool, allowed types, memory-only processing, untrusted) carries information.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers safety and scope but never says what 'inspect' actually returns (extracted text, metadata, or image description) or how truncation at max_chars is surfaced. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the result.

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 0% and none of the three parameters are explained. The description indirectly signals that part_id maps to a supported file type and that output is size-bounded (implying max_chars), but uid and part_id semantics are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Inspect') and a narrowly scoped resource ('one PDF, JPEG, or PNG attachment'), and names its source tool, mail_get_message. An agent can distinguish it from mail_get_message without opening the schema, though sibling differentiation is only implied rather than contrasted with an alternative.

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?

"selected from mail_get_message" implies the correct call chain (fetch message first, then pass uid/part_id) and constrains the supported types. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of what to do for non-PDF/JPEG/PNG parts, and no alternative tool is named.

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