imap_get_unread_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions defaulting to all folders and that passing a list speeds it up, but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required (though implied by params), or any potential side effects. This is minimal for a tool with zero annotations.

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 consists of two sentences: first explaining the core function, second providing a usage hint and default behavior. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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 description covers purpose, default behavior, and a performance suggestion. However, it does not explain the return format (e.g., dict of folder->count plus total), error cases, or how to handle multiple accounts. Given no output schema, this is a gap.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds non-obvious meaning by stating default behavior ('defaults to all folders') and a performance tip ('pass a folders list to limit scope and speed it up').

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 action (count unread emails), the resource (per folder), and the result (a total). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's for 'how many unread do I have?' overviews.

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 says 'Use for 'how many unread do I have?' overviews', providing clear usage context. It also hints at when to pass folders to speed up, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use.

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