get_watcher_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers safety. The description adds useful context about the tool's focus (IMAP IDLE watcher connections) and that it reports recent activity, going beyond what annotations provide. It does not detail output format, but for a read-only status tool this is acceptable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential purpose and scope efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what resource is inspected and that recent activity is included. However, it leaves vague what 'status' encompasses (e.g., booleans, counts, timestamps), so it is not perfect.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the guideline, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'status of IMAP IDLE watcher connections and recent activity'. It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings, which mostly focus on emails, mailboxes, or calendars, making it distinct as a status/diagnostic tool.

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 usage context is implied: it is a diagnostic tool for inspecting IMAP IDLE watcher connections. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over related tools like check_health or check_notification_setup, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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