get_mailbox_stats

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

No annotations provided. Description only states 'Get statistics', a read operation, but does not disclose behavior like defaults (e.g., when mailboxId omitted, it retrieves all mailboxes) or performance implications. Lacks depth beyond basic action.

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?

Single sentence of 7 words, very concise and front-loaded. However, could include the default behavior (all mailboxes) without much bloat. Efficient but slightly under-specified.

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 simple tool with 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention return format or that it is read-only, which would help completeness. Just enough to understand purpose.

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 100% (1 parameter fully described). Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema: it implies the parameter is optional and relates to a single mailbox, but this is already in the schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'mailbox statistics', and hints at specific statistics (unread count, total emails). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_mailboxes' which list mailboxes rather than stats.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_mailboxes' for listing only, or 'get_email' for detailed email retrieval). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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