imap_check_spam

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returns (spam analysis and domain statistics) but does not clarify if the tool modifies state, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. Basic transparency, but could be more explicit.

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 no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description vaguely states returns 'spam analysis and domain statistics,' which provides a reasonable idea of output but lacks specifics (e.g., structure of analysis). With 5 parameters, the description could be slightly more detailed, but it is mostly complete.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema itself, failing to enhance understanding of parameter usage.

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 checks emails for spam/disposable domains and returns analysis and statistics. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('emails in a folder'), distinguishing it from siblings like imap_get_email or imap_search_emails.

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 implies usage for spam checking, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., imap_list_spam_domains or imap_delete_spam). No exclusions or context are provided.

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