get_application_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing that it does not return secrets and does not connect to mail servers—behavioral details not captured in annotations. This is a strong complement.

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?

Two sentences, tightly packed with essential information. The primary action and the two key caveats are front-loaded, with zero filler. Every word contributes to agent understanding.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description fully equips an agent to call it correctly. It clarifies scope, safety, and non-connecting behavior, leaving no obvious 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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb ('inspect'), a clear resource ('optional local mail configuration'), and a critical constraint ('without returning secrets'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with applications/jobs, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly states what the tool does (inspect config) and explicitly what it does not do (connect to servers). While it does not name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, the absence of parameters and the unique focus on mail configuration make its usage context clear relative to siblings.

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