inbox_get_curation

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 tool is cheap (no email bodies fetched, no reasoning run) and returns banked judgments plus coverage counts. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency or rate limits, but the read-only nature is implied.

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 paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then provides usage guidance. It is concise, but lacks structural elements like bullet points or explicit parameter descriptions. Still, it is efficient.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately outlines return values. However, with 6 undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete for parameter usage. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the parameter documentation gap remains.

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 input schema has 6 parameters (limit, state, bucket, user_id, fresh_only, check_freshness) with 0% schema description coverage, yet the tool description does not explain any of them. The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 reads banked inbox triage from a curation ledger, specifying it returns judgments (bucket, importance, summary, suggested action) and coverage counts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like inbox_search and inbox_save_curation by emphasizing it is cheap and only returns precomputed data.

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 instructs to call this tool FIRST for triage requests, and provides clear conditional guidance: if coverage shows many uncurated or stale threads, then use inbox_search and inbox_save_curation; otherwise answer directly from banked verdicts. This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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