imap_get_unread_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does explain the per-folder/total result, the default-all-folders behavior, and the performance benefit of passing a folder list. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating, that an active account/connection is required, or address any side-effect/authentication concerns.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the use case is quoted for clarity, and the default/scoping behavior is explained efficiently.

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 count tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call semantics: what is counted, how results are grouped, the default scope, and how to limit the folder list. The only real gap is that the exact response format is not spelled out, but 'per folder, plus a total' gives enough shape for an agent to proceed.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description adds a modest operational nuance—passing folders limits scope and speeds the call up—but it mostly restates what the schema already says ('default: all'). This is the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 is specific and action-oriented: 'Count unread (unseen) emails per folder, plus a total.' This clearly identifies the resource (unread emails), the operation (counting), and the output shape (per-folder plus a total), distinguishing it from siblings that retrieve, search, or modify emails.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use for "how many unread do I have?" overviews.' It also explains the default behavior (all folders) and how to narrow scope for speed. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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