resolve-message-id

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains resolution via RFC822 Message-ID, return structure (numericId or null, resolvedCount), and limitation to colored flags. Lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but is transparent for a lookup tool.

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?

Very concise, with clear section breaks (Use when, Returns, Do not use). Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 the simple tool (1 param, output schema exists), the description covers the return structure and usage rules completely. No gaps identified.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by explaining the input (imap: ids resolved via RFC822) and context for the single parameter. With only one parameter, this is sufficient.

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?

Description states specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('imap: message ids to numeric Mail.app ids'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting that flag color only works with numeric IDs, so this tool is uniquely needed.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections with clear conditions and alternatives (e.g., 'flag/move/mark tools operate on imap: ids directly'), providing excellent guidance for the agent.

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