sweep_snoozed

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

Discloses that due threads return to inbox marked unread, that it's safe to run repeatedly (aligning with idempotentHint=true), and that failedCount/errors report messages that could not be woken. This adds valuable context beyond the annotations, which already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured: main action, usage guidance, and side effects. Every sentence adds value, with no 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema (not shown but present), the description fully covers purpose, usage, behavior, and error reporting. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions batching at 1000 messages and error reporting, which provides additional behavioral context but does not directly add meaning to parameters since none exist.

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 the tool resurfaces all snoozed threads whose date is due, with a specific verb ('resurface') and resource ('snoozed threads'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., 'unsnooze' for individual threads, 'list_snoozed' for listing) by specifying batch processing of due dates.

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?

Explicitly states 'USE WHEN: the user asks to process due snoozes, or as a scheduled maintenance call,' providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. Also notes it is safe to run repeatedly, implying no harmful side effects for repeated use.

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