delimit_notify_inbox

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits. It details side effects: action='poll' with process=True forwards owner-action emails (network writes), action='poll' with process=False is dry-run, and action='status'/'history' are read-only. This clearly communicates potential write operations and safe modes.

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 and well-structured, with a brief purpose statement, clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use sections, and a side-effects breakdown. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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, no required ones), the existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, and parameter semantics comprehensively. It also contrasts with siblings, making it contextually complete for an AI agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters and their defaults (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral implications of the 'process' parameter (dry-run vs. actual forwarding) and clarifying that 'status' and 'history' are read-only. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter effects beyond schema descriptions.

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 names specific verbs (check, classify, route) and resource (inbound email inbox). It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'delimit_notify is the outbound counterpart' and 'delimit_inbox_daemon controls the long-running daemon; this is a one-shot poll.'

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections. It advises using this tool to poll the operator inbox and classify emails, and warns not to use it for sending notifications (use delimit_notify) or controlling the polling daemon (use delimit_inbox_daemon). It also provides sibling contrast, making it clear when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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