get_watched_mailboxes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful details: the 100-item cap on discovered folders, the excluded folder source, the effective = discovered − excluded calculation, and automatic initialization for unregistered accounts. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is side-effect free, but the read-oriented wording strongly implies it.

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 compact and efficiently structured: purpose first, then each status defined in a scannable format, followed by one important behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place, and no redundancy is present.

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 no-parameter query tool without annotations or output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what will be returned and how the statuses relate. It could be even stronger by stating the response format explicitly, but the current description is broadly sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no burden for the description to explain inputs. The description instead usefully defines the returned status fields, which serves the agent's understanding of the result.

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 resource (account-specific folder logs) and the verb (조회/query), defining the three statuses. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the focus on discovered/excluded/effective scan status makes the tool's purpose readily identifiable.

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 implies this is used to inspect folder scan status, and it references check_new_mails for initialization behavior. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what conditions make it the right choice.

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