Extract Action Items

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with a non-destructive scan. The description adds value by noting it is a heuristic and not a replacement for a real task extractor, setting proper expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema and simple parameters, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, limitations, and usage context. No additional information is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters have schema descriptions. The description adds context: email_id is linked to IMAP UID from get_emails/search_emails, and folder avoids UID collisions. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states it scans a single email body for action-item-looking lines and returns a structured list. The verb 'scan' and resource 'email body' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling 'extract_meeting' by focusing on action items.

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 mentions it is useful for 'quick triage' but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like extract_meeting or when not to use it. The context is implied but lacks explicit guidance.

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