sweep_snoozed

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete side effects: due threads return to the inbox marked unread, dryRun wakes none, and failures keep the label for the next sweep. It also discloses a real limitation (under-counting in rehearsal for labels with >5000 messages), the batch size, and idempotence, giving the agent an accurate behavioral model.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (USE WHEN, SIDE EFFECTS) and front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence adds value—batch size, dryRun behavior, side effects, and error handling—without fluff. It is longer than ideal but earns its length through density of useful information.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: behavior, batch limits, dryRun rehearsal details, side effects, idempotence, and failure handling ('failedCount/errors report messages a batch could not wake'). No significant gaps remain for the agent to make an informed invocation decision.

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?

Even though the schema only defines a single boolean dryRun, the description thoroughly explains its purpose and outcome: setting dryRun:true produces a rehearsal that reports dueLabels/dueThreads and wakes nothing. This fully compensates for the schema's minimal parameter info, adding essential semantics for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Resurface') and a precise target ('all snoozed threads whose date is due (<= today)'), making it unmistakable what the tool does. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools such as list_snoozed, snooze, and unsnooze by focusing on acting on due threads rather than listing or individual operations.

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 includes an explicit 'USE WHEN' section stating clear triggers: 'the user asks to process due snoozes, or as a scheduled maintenance call,' and also covers the dryRun rehearsal use case for answering 'what is due right now?' without acting. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or direct alternative names, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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