delimit_notify_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: polls via IMAP, classifies emails, forwards owner-action emails when process=True, and supports dry-run. It also describes the action parameter modes (status, poll, history). However, it does not detail authentication, error handling, or side effects beyond forwarding.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the high-level purpose, and the second adds detail about polling and classification. No unnecessary 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's complexity (IMAP polling, classification, routing) and that an output schema exists (but not shown), the description adequately covers the core functionality and parameters. It could be more complete by explaining classification criteria or IMAP setup, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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%, but the description adds value beyond the schema for the action and process parameters. It explains the behavior of action='poll', 'status', 'history' and clarifies that process=True with poll actually forwards, while False is a dry-run. The limit parameter is not further elaborated, but overall enrichment is good.

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: 'Check inbound email inbox, classify, and route (Pro).' It specifies the verb (check, classify, route) and the resource (inbound email inbox), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delimit_notify and delimit_notify_routing by focusing on polling and classification.

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 for polling an inbox and routing based on owner vs non-owner, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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