assistantmail_get_inbound_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a get (read), but doesn't disclose what the response contains, whether the policy is account-wide or mailbox-specific, or any authentication requirements beyond the implied apiKey parameter. The description is minimal and doesn't add behavioral context beyond the obvious read 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, concise sentence that states the action and resource. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It could add a bit more context about the response or usage, but it is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It doesn't explain what the inbound policy settings are, what the response looks like, or how this relates to the update_inbound_policy sibling. Given the sibling list includes update_inbound_policy, a brief note about the read-only nature and relationship would improve completeness.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter (apiKey) with a clear pattern (^amk_.*). The description doesn't mention the apiKey parameter at all, but the schema's pattern and format provide sufficient meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema is self-explanatory for a single API key parameter.

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 verb 'Gets' and the resource 'inbound email policy settings' for the authenticated account. It distinguishes itself from the sibling update_inbound_policy by being a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 a read-only retrieval tool for the authenticated account's inbound policy. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but the read vs update distinction is clear from the verb and resource. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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