Sync Emails

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it fetches from IMAP into local cache and returns fetched emails. This explains the caching mechanism beyond what annotations convey, without contradiction.

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 sentences front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance and an alternative. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Extremely concise and well-structured.

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 presence of an output schema (context signal: 'Has output schema: true'), the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage. It mentions return value ('Returns emails fetched') at a high level, which suffices. The two optional parameters are well-documented in the schema, making the description complete for this simple tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (folder and limit). The description does not add further parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Fetch the latest emails from IMAP into the local cache') and distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_emails' by noting the alternative for paginated access. The verb 'sync' is specific and the resource 'emails' is clearly indicated.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('refresh the cache after Bridge syncs new messages') and provides an alternative ('use get_emails for paginated access'). This gives clear guidance on context and exclusion.

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