Get agent organization/alert plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description reinforces that it does not move, flag, or delete emails, adding context about the embedded agent rules. It does not contradict 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 concise sentences. The first sentence states purpose, the second addresses usage and constraints. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

Given the tool has two enum parameters with defaults and an output schema, the description covers when to use it and what it produces. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication, but that is likely handled by the broader tool setup.

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 coverage is 100% with enum descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about the outputs (folder/label structure and alerts) which maps to the 'goal' parameter, but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('analyzes'), the resource ('the mailbox'), and the outputs ('proposed folder/label structure plus content alerts'). It distinguishes this planning tool from sibling tools that perform actual actions like moving or deleting emails.

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 explicitly says to use it before running the CLI agent:organize command, and clarifies it is read-only. While it provides clear usage context, it does not enumerate alternatives among sibling tools for planning.

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