get_mail_full_index_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses what counters are returned and that it scans all rows. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only, side effects, rate limits, or response format. The name implies read but not explicitly.

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 that is front-loaded with the key information: what counters are and across what. It is concise with no unnecessary 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 captures the essential purpose and output. It is slightly lacking in explaining the exact format of the response or how to interpret the counters, but sufficient for a simple status tool. Could be enhanced with an example or note about the data source.

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 no parameters, so the description's job is to explain the tool's purpose and output. It does so by listing the counters and the use case. Since schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), the description adds value beyond the schema. Baseline 4 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 tool retrieves counters (success, empty, failed, pending) across all mailFtsMeta rows, and its purpose is to verify completeness of the Apple Mail index. The verb 'get' and resource 'full index status' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_mail_index_status', which might be a subset, leaving some ambiguity.

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 includes a usage hint: 'Use to verify completeness of Apple Mail index.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools (e.g., 'get_mail_index_status' for partial status).

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