inbox_summary

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does say what the tool returns (two counts), implying a lightweight read, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether counts are scoped to a folder, or how counts are affected by unread state — modest but not rich transparency.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the tool and its output with zero wasted words.

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 no-parameter summary tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essentials of what is returned. It could clarify scope (which inbox/folder) and read-only nature, but it is close to complete for this complexity level.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a no-parameter tool 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 ('quick counts') and resource ('the inbox') plus the two values returned: total messages and unread messages. An agent can tell this is a summary/count tool distinct from siblings like list_messages or sender_summary, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 word 'quick' implies this is a lightweight overview rather than a message-listing tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus list_messages or sender_summary, and no exclusions are given.

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