imap_folder_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'get status information.' It does not state that the operation is read-only, what status fields (e.g., message count, unseen count, UIDNEXT) are returned, or whether a connection is required. No contradiction exists, but disclosure is minimal.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words and the action is front-loaded: 'Get status information about a folder.' It is concise, though its brevity restricts how much guidance it can convey.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the status result contains, how it differs from imap_get_unread_count, or how account selection behaves. An agent would have to guess at return semantics and sibling boundaries before invoking the tool.

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%, so the schema already documents folder, accountId, and accountName. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, putting it at the baseline of 3.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get status information about a folder.' It is broadly distinguishable from siblings like imap_list_folders (listing folders) and imap_get_unread_count (counting unread messages), but it does not explicitly differentiate itself or define what 'status information' includes.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to choose this tool over related siblings such as imap_get_unread_count or imap_list_folders, nor does it mention prerequisites like an active connection or account selection.

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