Folder Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the main behavior: returning aggregate counts rather than message content. However, it does not address whether the operation is read-only, what happens for invalid/nonexistent folders, or how recent is defined.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes: it names the resource, specifies the exact counts, and states a key behavioral boundary.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the set of returned counters, and a clear non-behavior (not listing messages). It is functionally adequate, though it would benefit from a brief usage note relative to sibling tools.

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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter, 'folder', with a default and a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little beyond naming the folder as the object being inspected, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns folder counters (total, unread, recent) for a given folder and explicitly says it does not list messages. This distinguishes it from message-oriented siblings like read_email and search_emails, though it does not explicitly contrast it with list_folders.

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 guidance is given about when to use folder_status versus alternatives such as list_folders or search_emails. The 'without listing messages' phrase implies a use case, but there is no explicit condition, prerequisite, or exclusion.

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