folder_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does usefully disclose that the operation does not mark messages as read. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether subfolders are included, permission requirements, pagination, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The key operation and safety behavior are both stated immediately.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate to understand the basic purpose. It is incomplete on folder parameter semantics and on the exact return shape of the counts, which leaves meaningful 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?

The only parameter, folder, has 0% schema description coverage, but the description does not explain accepted folder names, path format, or that it defaults to INBOX. It only says 'in a folder' without adding meaning beyond the bare schema property name.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it counts total and unread messages in a folder. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_messages or search_messages, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need folder-level counts rather than message contents. The description adds the safety note 'without marking any read' but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to list_messages or search_messages.

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