get_unread_summary

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

Without annotations, the description explains the internal behavior: iterating LIST, skipping Noselect folders, calling STATUS on each, and returning a dict with keys for each folder plus a _summary. It does not mention error handling or performance limitations, but the read-only nature and basic flow are well covered.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then concisely explaining the method and efficiency benefit. No wasted words.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what it does and the structure of the return value (dict with folder keys and _summary with totals). It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Schema coverage is 100% trivially, and the baseline for 0 params is 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 aggregates unread and total message counts across all selectable folders, distinguishing it from the per-folder sibling get_folder_status. It uses specific terms like 'LIST', 'Noselect', and 'STATUS', making the action unambiguous.

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 recommends using this tool over calling get_folder_status per folder for efficiency, because it uses a single IMAP session. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names a direct alternative.

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