hey_screen_in

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

No annotations provided; description only says 'allow future emails' which implies state change. Does not disclose reversibility, permissions needed, or side effects. The description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure but is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence of 9 words with no filler. Information is front-loaded. Every word is necessary.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and moderate complexity (multiple screening tools), the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'approve' entails or how the result is confirmed. Lacks completeness for full usability but is adequate for basic understanding.

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?

Only one parameter 'sender_email' with schema description 'The sender email address to approve'. Description adds no further meaning beyond schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Approve a sender') and the specific context ('from the Screener'), with a parenthetical note on effect ('allow future emails'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'hey_screen_out' and 'hey_screen_in_by_id'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include 'hey_screen_out' (opposite) and 'hey_screen_in_by_id' (alternative using ID), but no comparison is provided. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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