folder_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read but says nothing about required permissions, behavior for a nonexistent folder, or whether counts include subfolders. Only the returned data shape is hinted at, and an output schema already covers that.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and returned metrics in one pass; every word earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple read with one optional parameter. However, the undocumented default and folder-identifier format leave a real gap for correct invocation, and no annotations backstop the safety profile.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'one folder', omitting the parameter's default ('INBOX') and the accepted identifier format (folder name vs. ID/path). It adds little beyond the schema's bare 'folder' property.

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 ('Get') and resource ('folder'), and specifies exactly what is returned (total and unread counts). It implicitly distinguishes itself from account_status (account-wide) and list_folders (enumerating folders), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent must infer from the name that this is for per-folder counts rather than account-wide counts (account_status) or folder enumeration (list_folders); nothing in the text routes the choice.

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