myagentinbox

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context about the return value (list of sender, subject, preview), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what to expect from the operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the return result without extraneous detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 simple read-only tool with a single parameter, the description adequately covers the purpose, the operation, and the content of the response (message summaries with sender, subject, preview). The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit listing of returned fields, and annotations handle safety concerns.

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 schema covers the only parameter 'address' with a clear description and example, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 checks for messages in a disposable inbox and returns a list of summaries, distinguishing it from siblings like read_message and download_attachment. The verb 'check' plus resource 'disposable inbox' is specific, and the mention of message summaries makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 use when you want to see what messages exist in an inbox, but it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like read_message for full content or create_inbox for making a new inbox. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary or comparative guidance.

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

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

Discloses the 24-hour expiry and the returned fields (email address, creation time, expiry). Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, so the description adds meaningful lifecycle context beyond annotations.

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 sentences that front-load the action and outcome, with no unnecessary words. 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 simple zero-parameter creation tool, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, and expected return values. The sibling context and no output schema make this complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameter burden. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and return values rather than 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('disposable email inbox') with a clear 24-hour expiration detail. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_inbox, read_message, and download_attachment.

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 the use case: creating a temporary inbox for receiving emails. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but sibling names make the alternatives obvious, providing clear context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that images return as base64, text files inline, and binary files as download URLs, which is useful for the agent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return format details. Every word earns its place; no wasted text.

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?

Given the straightforward nature of the tool, the annotations provide safety context, and the schema documents all parameters, the description adequately covers purpose and return behavior. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return format explanation, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (address, message_id, filename). The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Download' and identifies the resource 'email attachment', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_inbox and read_message. It also specifies output formats (base64, inline, URLs), reinforcing its purpose.

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 use for retrieving email attachments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the schema parameter descriptions reference 'from read_message results' and 'from check_inbox results', providing clear context for when this tool is applicable. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, confirming a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying exactly what content is returned (sender, recipients, subject, body, attachment info), which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists what is included. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 read operation with robust schema and annotations, the description is complete: it tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and how to reference a message. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the clear list of return fields. Sibling tools are implicitly known from context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already adequately documented (address as inbox email, message_id from check_inbox results). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it mentions returned content but does not clarify parameter formats or constraints.

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 specific verb 'read' and resource 'email message', and enumerates the content fields returned (sender, recipients, subject, body text, attachment info). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_inbox (which lists messages) and download_attachment (which fetches a single attachment).

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 the use case: retrieving the full content of a specific email message. The schema parameter 'message_id' explicitly references 'check_inbox results', providing context for when to use this tool. However, the description itself does not explicitly name or exclude alternatives it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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