follow_email_link

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that only http(s) links from the inbox are followed and mentions the return values (status, final URL, short preview). It does not mention potential side effects, but the described behavior is reasonably transparent for a link-following tool.

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 three concise sentences, each adding essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured with a clear action, usage context, and contrast.

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 provides necessary context: it references wait_for_email, specifies return outputs, and clarifies limitations. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but for a simple link-following tool, the information is largely complete.

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?

Only one parameter (webhook_token) has a schema description, and the tool description adds minimal clarity. 'url' and 'request_id' are not explained, nor is their relationship to the email capture or usage after wait_for_email. Schema coverage is low, and the description fails to compensate.

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 action: opening a verify/magic-link/reset URL from a captured sign-up email. It distinguishes from OTP-code retrieval, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use after wait_for_email, limits to http(s) links from that inbox, and directs OTP-code extraction to a different tool. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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