scan_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that listing involves classification (kind), content inspection ("whether a PDF reads like an invoice"), ledger-state lookup, and exact-duplicate detection — behavior an agent could not guess. It does not state cost/latency for scanning or explicitly confirm the operation is side-effect free, so it falls just short of full 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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, and the parenthetical enumerations of kinds and statuses are compact. The second half is a long run-on field list that could be tightened, but every element conveys real information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value enumeration is partly redundant, but it usefully tells the agent what signals to look for (duplicate flags, invoice-likeness) before committing to follow-up tools. For a zero-parameter listing tool this is essentially complete; only the relationship to sibling workflow steps is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing to disambiguate and the description correctly avoids inventing filter arguments.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the files in the inbox folder") with an explicit scope and ordering (newest first), so it is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like plan_inbox or index_year. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the inbox-listing scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before extract, file_document, or plan_inbox, but the description never says when to reach for it versus those alternatives, nor any preconditions (e.g., whether the inbox path must exist).

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