annotate_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-blocking read operation ('without waiting', 're-read'), which implies no mutation. It doesn't describe return values or edge cases, but for a zero-parameter read tool, this is adequate.

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 concise sentences with no filler: the first states the action and a key behavioral trait, the second gives the when-to-use context. Every word 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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and timing. It doesn't define 'Send batch' or return format, but the explanatory clause and non-waiting hint make it reasonably complete.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to explain inputs. Baseline 4 applies.

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 identifies a specific verb ('re-read') and resource ('most recent Send batch'), and adds an explanatory clause about its use case. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the inbox rather than screenshots or resolution, though the term 'Send batch' is left undefined.

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?

It provides a concrete scenario ('if the conversation moved on and you need the original request again') and highlights the non-waiting behavior, implying this is faster than waiting. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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