mail_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is well-covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it performs a LIVE IMAP authentication check (implying network interaction) and explicitly disclaims reading messages. This enriches the agent's understanding of what side effects might occur.

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, dense sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose: checking local config plus live IMAP auth, and explicitly noting it doesn't read messages. Zero waste—every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and an output schema, the description adequately covers what's needed. The note about live authentication and not reading messages covers the behavioral dimensions not captured elsewhere. Not much more could be added without redundancy.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so per the rubric, the description carries no parameter burden. The description correctly conveys that the tool operates on the local environment's configuration with no user-supplied inputs, which is sufficient.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Check local configuration plus live IMAP authentication; does not read messages.' The verb 'check' + specific targets (configuration, IMAP authentication) makes the purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it does not read messages, distinguishing it from read_mail.

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 implies this is a setup/diagnostic tool for verifying configuration and connectivity before performing mail operations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the 'check...does not read messages' framing gives clear context that this is a meta/diagnostic operation rather than a mail-reading operation.

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