get_folder_status

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

The description details the return dict contents and notes the significance of uidvalidity changes. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error cases like missing folders. With no annotations, more explicit behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 concise, listing return keys clearly in a bullet-like format. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's output, with no extraneous text.

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?

The description covers the return format well but misses error scenarios, permission requirements, and the fact that the folder must exist. For a simple tool, it is partially complete but leaves gaps.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description does not describe the 'folder' parameter beyond a brief mention in the return dict. The parameter's purpose, constraints, or format are not explained, forcing reliance on the schema alone.

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 'Get counts and state for a folder via IMAP STATUS', specifying the action and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_unread_summary' which returns only unread counts, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_unread_summary' or 'inspect_email'. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for use.

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