delimit_inbox_daemon

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses polling frequency (5 minutes), classification, forwarding, draft approval mechanism, and that auto-posting is disabled. This reveals key behavioral traits, though side effects or failure modes are not detailed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value: control verb, daemon behavior, and key constraint. No redundant text.

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 low complexity (single parameter, simple actions), the description sufficiently covers behavior and limitations. Output schema exists, so return values are not required. Minor gap: no mention of when to use each action value, but schema covers that.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'action' parameter, listing the three valid values. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool controls an inbox polling daemon for email governance, and explains its core functions (poll, classify, forward, draft approval). This verb+resource structure is specific and distinguishes it from sibling daemon tools.

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 implies the tool is for managing the inbox daemon but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like delimit_daemon_status or delimit_social_daemon. No exclusions or comparative guidance is given.

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