imap_mailbox_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the mailbox is not selected, which is a meaningful side-effect guarantee. It also indicates the return focus (message counts) even though the output schema already exists. It does not cover errors or authentication, but for a simple read-only status tool this is sufficient.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key behavioral differentiator ('without selecting it'). Every word contributes 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with a complete output schema and a clear, low-risk behavior, the description is fully adequate. It explains what the tool returns, confirms the no-selection behavior, and the schema covers all invocation details.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both parameters (mailbox and account_id). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and that is acceptable because the parameters are self-explanatory.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get mailbox message counts') and narrows the scope to total, unseen, and recent counts. It distinguishes itself from sibling message-fetching and search tools (e.g., imap_get_message, imap_search_messages) by stating it does not select the mailbox.

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 phrase 'without selecting it' gives clear context that this is a lightweight, side-effect-free status check, which tells the agent when to use it instead of operations that require mailbox selection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for correct routing.

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