hey_list_reply_later

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

The description discloses that results are cached by default and that the 'force_refresh' parameter can bypass the cache. This is a useful behavioral trait beyond what the input schema describes. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, which it handles well.

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 two sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds essential caching context. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no required fields, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the caching behavior, and the parameter's role. No additional context seems necessary.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds meaning by explaining that 'force_refresh=true' bypasses the cache, clarifying the default behavior (cached). This adds context beyond the schema's type description.

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 lists emails in the 'Reply Later stack', distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other categories (e.g., hey_list_imbox, hey_list_drafts). The verb 'list' and specific resource 'Reply Later stack' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer its use from the naming convention and sibling list tools. Lacks explicit guidance for when to force refresh.

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