get_watcher_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the scope ('IMAP IDLE watcher connections and recent activity'). No contradictions; the description supplements the annotations.

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 sentence of 12 words, achieving maximum conciseness with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and scope effectively.

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 zero parameters and clear annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks information about the output format or what 'status' includes, which is important for a diagnostic tool. No output schema is provided, so the description should compensate.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 4. The description does not repeat parameter info, which 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 it retrieves the status of IMAP IDLE watcher connections and recent activity, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of IMAP IDLE watcher connections and recent activity'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_health and get_email_status, which have different scopes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_health or get_email_status. It implies it's for monitoring watcher connections, but lacks direct guidance on selection or exclusion.

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