Check for messages in a disposable inbox. Returns a list of message summaries including sender, subject, and preview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | The inbox email address (e.g. abc123@myagentinbox.com) |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: creating an inbox, checking for messages, reading a specific message, and downloading an attachment. There is no functional overlap between them.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_inbox, create_inbox, download_attachment, read_message), which is perfectly consistent and predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a disposable email service, covering the essential operations without unnecessary bloat or missing functionality.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of a disposable inbox: creating it, checking messages, reading details, and handling attachments. Since inboxes auto-expire, no delete tool is needed, so there are no obvious gaps.
