sync_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the incremental nature via stored checkpoints to avoid refetching, which is good behavioral context. It could mention any side effects or return values, but it sufficiently describes the main operation for an AI agent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first covers functionality, the second gives usage context, the third offers parameter advice. No waste.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, and key parameter hint. It orients the agent well for typical use, though it could mention what the sync returns or if it's safe to call repeatedly. Still, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds value by hinting to set 'full:true' for larger initial sample, which enriches the boolean parameter. For other parameters, it doesn't add beyond schema, but baseline is 3; the extra hint lifts it to 4.

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 tool incrementally syncs email metadata from IMAP into a local SQLite index using checkpoints, which specifies the verb and resource distinctly. It sets itself apart from siblings like search_indexed_emails and run_background_sync.

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 explicitly advises using the tool before search_indexed_emails or get_threads when the index may be stale, and suggests preferring run_background_sync for scheduled cycles. It also provides guidance on the 'full' parameter for initial syncs, offering clear when-to-use and alternative context.

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