gmail_curate_inbox

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 discloses that the ranking is deterministic heuristic (not LLM-based) and that it renders a dashboard. Minor omission: no mention of any potential side effects or permissions, but it is safe for a read-like 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, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides caveats and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is 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 that the tool has an output schema (so return values don't need explanation) and the description clearly covers purpose, alternatives, and UI behavior, it is complete for an inbox curation tool of moderate complexity.

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%; the description does not mention any of the three parameters (limit, query, user_id). The schema provides basic info (type, defaults), but the description adds no semantic guidance on how to use these parameters effectively.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Rank recent inbox threads by a deterministic heuristic score and render the inbox dashboard.' It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools by stating it is a quick provisional view, not the assistant's own triage.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (for a quick provisional view) and when not to (for triage, prefer inbox_get_curation). Also provides guidance on UI interaction: keep response brief when UI is rendered.

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