Export mail for the Mycelium runtime

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying that output matches memory-runtime-pro's RawItem field-for-field and requires no translation layer. However, it does not explain operational behavior such as how days/limit/mailbox affect the export or whether the mailbox is modified, beyond what annotations imply.

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 front-loaded with the main action and uses only two sentences. The field enumeration is somewhat dense but earns its place by explaining the exact output contract and compatibility rationale.

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?

While the output format is well explained, the description omits parameter semantics and any usage guidance. Since all parameters are optional and schema coverage is 0%, an agent needs more context to choose meaningful values for days, limit, and mailbox. The presence of an output schema helps but does not fill this gap.

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 0%, and the description provides no meaning for the three parameters: days, limit, and mailbox. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names and defaults.

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 action ('Emit messages as RawItem-shaped records') and names a concrete target ('the Mycelium runtime'). It also enumerates the exact output fields, making the tool's role clearly distinct from sibling tools like imap_search_messages or imap_sync_to_vault.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives such as imap_sync_to_vault or imap_read_message, nor does it give conditions for choosing export over other operations. The agent must infer the appropriate context.

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