get_mailbox_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden, but it only states what the tool does without disclosing side effects, return structure, or required permissions. It does not even confirm it is a safe read-only operation, leaving the agent with uncertainty about its behavior.

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: one purpose line and a parameter list. No filler or redundant repetition. It is front-loaded with the key function and structured clearly.

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 tool is simple, but the description lacks information about the return value format, whether counts are recursive, or how to obtain valid mailbox names (e.g., via list_mailboxes). Given no output schema and no annotations, this leaves gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains that 'mailbox' is a folder name and provides the default value 'INBOX', which adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default fields. For a single parameter, this is adequate.

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 the number of messages and unread messages in a folder, using a specific verb ('Hämta' / 'Get') and resource ('antal meddelanden' / 'number of messages'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mailboxes or get_email_headers.

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 is self-explanatory for a status-checking tool, and the parameter is covered. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites like first listing mailboxes.

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