get_inbox_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description does not explicitly confirm this is read-only, safe, or without side effects. It also fails to define what constitutes 'recent' (time window) or mention any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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, efficient sentence that places the action verb at the beginning. It avoids redundancy with the schema, though its brevity contributes to the lack of differentiation from sibling tools.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description minimally suffices by indicating the return value structure. However, it lacks completeness regarding the tool's relationship to 'get_mailbox_summary' and does not clarify behavioral safety in the absence of annotations.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('mailbox' and 'account'), including default values. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which warrants the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Get a summary') and return value ('total, unread, and recent email counts'), but creates ambiguity with the sibling tool 'get_mailbox_summary'. It fails to clarify whether this tool is inbox-specific (as the name suggests) or works for any mailbox (as the description and parameter suggest), leaving the agent uncertain about which tool to select.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_mailbox_summary', 'count_emails', or 'read_inbox'. The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions for use, despite the existence of functionally similar sibling tools.

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