maily_sync

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the important traits that this hits the network and mutates local state ('fetches new messages'), the default scope, and the return shape ('number of changes per profile'). It omits cost/duration, auth requirements, and whether concurrent syncs or partial failures are handled.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the scoping rule, then the return value. Every sentence adds information an agent needs and none repeats structured fields verbatim.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers action, default scope, and return type, which is close to sufficient. It still leaves open what a 'change' is, whether the call is long-running or blocking, and what a valid profile identifier is.

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 coverage is 0% for the single `profile` parameter, so the description must compensate. It does explain the null default ('syncs every account'), which is the key semantic, but never says what a profile value looks like (name, email, or ID) or that maily_list_accounts is the source of valid values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Syncs from the mail server') and clarifies the payload ('fetches new messages'), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like maily_list_messages and maily_search. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, keeping it short of a 5.

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 scoping rule ('without `profile`, syncs every account') implies when to pass a profile, but the description never says when to call sync versus just calling maily_list_messages, nor any prerequisite such as calling it before a listing to get fresh data. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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