Rank a mailbox on two axes (importance x urgency) and return what needs a human now versus what can wait or is already handled — with each thread's open commitment (the promise you owe or are owed, and whether it's overdue) surfaced inline, so the follow-through is visible on the very first call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's behavior: ranking and returning categories with commitments. However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies any state or if it is read-only, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single verbose sentence with multiple clauses, making it less concise. While it front-loads the core action, it could be shortened without losing meaning.
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?
Despite the lack of an output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of the returned data (categorized items with commitments). However, it does not detail the exact structure or format, leaving some uncertainty.
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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters.
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 tool's purpose: ranking a mailbox on importance and urgency, and returning categorized items with commitment details. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_commitments and list_right_now by combining prioritization and commitment visibility.
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 usage for triaging inbox but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or list_commitments. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: drafting replies, listing commitments, showing urgent messages, searching, triaging inbox, and explaining rankings. No overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., draft_reply, list_commitments), but 'search' is a single verb and 'why_surfaced' uses a question word. Still consistent enough for predictability.
6 tools is a well-scoped set for an email management server, covering drafting, searching, triaging, commitments, and explanations. Not too many or too few.
The tool surface has significant gaps: no tool to read a specific message's full content, send a reply, or manage emails beyond triage. Only covers partial email workflow.
