inbox_export

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

Annotations only provide generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds crucial behavioral context: it copies attachments, rewrites paths, marks messages as taken, and requires a fresh directory. It also discloses a failure mode (raw rows cause missing attachments). These are significant behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey, with no contradictions.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then efficiently covers usage, prerequisites, and exceptions. Every sentence contributes new information without redundancy. The length is appropriate for the complexity.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it produces, when to use it, the state change it triggers, the required condition on target, and a specific follow-up. It does not describe the return value or format of the output folder, but since it's an action that writes a folder, that may be less critical. It also does not explain the 'range' parameters (since/until/chat) explicitly, but the name 'range' in the first sentence gives a hint. Overall, it is nearly complete for successful invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'target' (must be fresh directory) and 'include_taken' (rebuild for earlier messages). However, it does not clarify 'since', 'until', 'chat', 'limit', or 'scope' semantics beyond what their names and types suggest. It adds meaning to two key parameters but leaves the others to inference. Given the low coverage, this is a partial compensation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Write a self-contained folder for a range, ready to import into an archive.' It clearly distinguishes from inbox_fetch by naming the alternative and the condition ('whenever the messages are going into the archive'). The purpose is explicit and 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?

It explicitly recommends this tool over inbox_fetch for archiving, explains why (copies attachments, rewrites paths), warns about the failure mode of raw rows, and gives a follow-up action ('call inbox_done'). It also specifies prerequisites (fresh target directory) and the special case for include_taken. Clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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