delimit_notify_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the core mechanism (polls via IMAP, classifies, forwards owner-action emails) and parameter behaviors (e.g., dry-run with `process`). However, it omits details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects on the inbox, which reduces transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the high-level purpose, then a sentence detailing the mechanism. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description provides a solid overview of functionality and key behaviors. It is mostly complete but could mention the specific email account ('pro@delimit.ai') and permissions to fully inform usage. However, output schema is present, so return value details are not required.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about classification logic ('owner-action' vs 'non-owner') but does not significantly enhance the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides (action values, limit, process).

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's purpose: to check an inbound email inbox, classify emails, and route them. It specifies the verb-resource combination ('check inbound email inbox, classify, and route') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `delimit_notify` and `delimit_notify_routing` by focusing on the inbox polling and classification process.

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 usage scenarios (e.g., checking inbox, classifying, routing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (such as `delimit_notify` or `delimit_notify_routing`). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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