email_folder_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of side effects, authentication requirements, error scenarios, or return structure. This leaves a significant transparency gap.

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, 'Get email processing statistics for a specific folder', containing no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, even though it may be underspecified in other dimensions.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, but it only vaguely says 'statistics' without specifying what data is included. It also does not mention behavior for nonexistent folders or how to obtain folder names. For a single-parameter tool, the description is incomplete.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter folder_name with description 'IMAP folder name' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about accepted formats, default behavior, or how to source valid folder names. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no extra value is added.

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 ('Get') and resource ('email processing statistics') scoped to a specific folder. It is distinct from sibling tools like email_list_folders and email_transfer_folders, which are about listing and transferring folders, but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives, and the exact content of the statistics is unspecified.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no mention of related tools like email_list_folders to validate folder names. It is simply a statement of functionality, offering no usage context.

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