İTÜ Mail Status

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is handled. The description still adds value by disclosing that the connection is verified-TLS and that no message bodies are returned, which is useful context beyond the structured hints.

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 that front-loads the action and the returned data with zero padding. Every clause (TLS verification, read-only, counts, no content) earns its place.

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?

With no parameters and a dedicated output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, and it still summarizes them briefly. It falls just short of full completeness by not mentioning authentication preconditions or failure behavior when the IMAP connection cannot be established.

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 disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Schema coverage is nominally 100% because there is nothing to document.

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?

It pairs a specific verb ('Check ... connection') with a concrete resource and states exactly what comes back ('total and unread inbox counts'). The phrase 'without returning message content' implicitly separates it from mail_list_inbox and mail_get_message, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the lightweight count check versus mail_list_inbox for actual messages, but the description never says when to prefer this tool or that a session/authentication must already be established. No alternatives are named.

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