sync

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety burden, and it does disclose the critical side effect: fetching marks conversations as read in Admentum, which is exactly the kind of non-obvious mutation an agent needs. It still omits how 'new' is determined (no cursor/since parameter exists) and any auth or rate-limit context.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the primary action front-loaded and the side effect immediately following.

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?

Covers action, source system, return value (counts), and side effect for a zero-param tool with no output schema. The one real gap is how 'new' is scoped without any cursor or since argument, leaving the agent unsure whether state is server-side or whether this is a full re-fetch.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: fetch new messages and attachments from Admentum, plus what it returns (counts). It does not differentiate from plausible siblings like list_pending or list_threads, which an agent could easily confuse with 'fetch new messages'.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Fetch new messages' for a sync operation, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_pending, search, or mark_seen, and no exclusions or preconditions given.

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