delimit_inbox_daemon

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully covers behavioral traits. It details side effects (start/stop mutate daemon state), daemon polling interval (5 minutes), classification, forwarding, draft approval handling, auto-posting being disabled, and gateway-only backing module behavior. This is comprehensive and exceeds minimal requirements.

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 clear sections: purpose, usage guidelines, sibling contrast, side effects, and daemon behavior. Each sentence adds value, though the initial 'Pro' qualification is slightly redundant. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded.

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 one optional parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, and daemon internals. The output schema exists and is not described, which is acceptable per rubric. The description fully compensates for lack of annotations.

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% with a single parameter 'action' that has a clear description and default. The description mentions action values in the side effects section but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 'Control the inbox polling daemon for email governance (Pro).' It specifies the verb 'control' and the resource 'inbox polling daemon.' It distinguishes from sibling 'delimit_notify_inbox' which reads inbox items, establishing a clear, distinct purpose.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections are provided. Use is advised at session start or to stop/inspect; explicitly warns against using for reading inbound items (directing to delimit_notify_inbox) or sending notifications (delimit_notify). This provides clear, actionable guidance.

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