watch_new_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add useful behavior: it uses IMAP IDLE, returns immediately on a new message, and respects a timeout. It does not explain what the returned 'result' is on timeout, whether the watch is one-shot, or what happens when no mail arrives.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core behavior and the timeout trigger with no filler or repetition of the schema. Every sentence 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?

For a long-polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, key operational details are missing: the shape of the result when a new email arrives, what exactly happens on timeout, and whether the call blocks until one of those two events. An agent cannot fully predict the invocation outcome.

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 coverage is 100%, with folder and timeoutSeconds already documented including defaults, range, and early-return behavior. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific action: watching the mailbox in real time via IMAP IDLE and returning on new email or timeout, which distinguishes it from one-off siblings like check_inbox or search_emails. However, it says 'gelen kutusunu' (inbox) while the folder parameter allows listening to other folders, so the resource scope is slightly imprecise.

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 real-time, event-driven wording implies it is for waiting on new mail, and the timeout parameter gives a clear execution bound. It does not explicitly compare this tool to check_inbox or say when not to use it, so selection guidance is left to inference.

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