hey_imbox_summary

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

No annotations exist. The description discloses that the tool provides a summary with counts and mentions the force_refresh parameter for cache control. It adds moderate behavioral context beyond the schema but lacks details on output format or any side effects.

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 clear sentence with minimal waste. It could be slightly more concise but effectively conveys purpose and usage.

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 one-parameter summary tool without output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (screener count, bubbled up, new emails). It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function, though it could mention that it returns aggregated data rather than list of emails.

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% (1 parameter described). The description does not add additional meaning to the 'force_refresh' parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves a complete Imbox summary with specific components (screener count, bubbled up emails, new emails). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hey_list_imbox by focusing on aggregated summary rather than list.

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 says 'Use this for a comprehensive view of the inbox state,' which implies when to use. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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