inbox_open_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the address is never shown, which is a non-obvious privacy/behavior trait, but it omits side effects, navigation target, auth requirements, and whether external network access occurs.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat follows immediately.

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 simple tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description states the core action and one important behavior. It still leaves gaps around prerequisites (how to obtain the message number), side effects, and routing versus related tools, so it is only minimally complete.

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 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description references a number even though the schema exposes no parameters, which creates some ambiguity, but there are no schema parameters for it to clarify or contradict.

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?

It gives a specific verb (Open), resource (a link out of a message), and scoping detail (by its number), so the core action is clear. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like open_page or navigate, and 'by its number' is slightly ambiguous about whether it refers to a message number or a link number.

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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives. It implies a message number is required but never says to call read_inbox first or how this differs from open_page.

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