panelica_mail_queue_get_v1_mail_queue_stats

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the required server:read scope and the HTTP method/path, which are useful auth and access details beyond the annotations. It does not mention rate limits or response format, but the bar is lower because annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose first followed by HTTP path, category, scopes, and read-only. 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotation, and 'Category: Mail Queue' is somewhat redundant with the name, but overall there is no meaningful fluff.

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, zero-parameter, read-only stats endpoint, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly: it gives the HTTP method, path, category, required scopes, and safety profile. There is no output schema, so the returned stats fields are not enumerated, but this is not necessary for successful invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies since no parameter explanation is needed.

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 and resource ('Get mail queue stats'), and adds the concrete HTTP path and category. It is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling 'stats' tools (domain stats, git stats, server metrics) because it names the mail queue resource 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?

The description makes the intended usage context clear through the category 'Mail Queue', the read-only flag, and required scope. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the resource is unique enough that an agent can select it when mail queue statistics are needed.

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