voidmail_get_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the content of the returned statistics, with no mention of cost, rate limits, or whether stats are scoped to the authenticated account.

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 front-loaded sentence listing the verb, resource, and returned metrics with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive statistics read with no output schema, the description covers the essentials by naming the metrics returned. It could be slightly stronger by noting the statistics are for the connected account, but nothing necessary to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get inbox statistics') and enumerates the three metrics returned (total emails, unread count, storage used), so an agent knows exactly what this yields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like voidmail_list_inbox, but the resource is distinct enough to disambiguate.

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?

Implicit usage only — an agent can infer this is the tool for counts/summaries rather than message retrieval, and the description of returned metrics supports that. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives (e.g., list_inbox for actual messages) are given.

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