hey_list_screener

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds a genuinely useful trait they do not: results are cached and only refreshed when force_refresh=true. That caching disclosure is real behavioral value beyond structured fields, though rate limits, pagination, or staleness windows are not addressed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the caching caveat, then the follow-up tool. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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, annotation-covered list tool with no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape ('same shape as hey_list_emails, plus clearanceId'), which is exactly what an agent needs to chain into hey_screen_by_id. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents force_refresh as a cache-bypass flag with a default of false. The description echoes that behavior ('unless force_refresh=true') but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List senders waiting in the Screener for approval') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling hey_screen_by_id, which handles approval/rejection instead. An agent can tell what this tool does and what it does not do without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to hey_screen_by_id with the returned clearanceId for the follow-up approve/reject step, which gives clear situational context. It stops short of stating when *not* to use this tool (e.g., vs hey_list_emails or hey_screen for other inbox views), so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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