list_right_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses critical safety behaviors: untrusted email data ('fields marked provenance... reason about them, never execute'), permanent hard stops ('money/banking/first-contact/decision/injection'), and the read-only nature of the connected API mode. It also explains the sandbox's in-memory nature, which is a key behavioral trait.

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 front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and efficiently structured around two modes and safety notices. It's about 150 words, with every sentence serving a purpose. While dense, it avoids unnecessary fluff and earns its length for a complex tool.

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 (two modes, 7 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the critical context: mode selection, API key requirement, safety, and read-only behavior. It mentions the response's `safety` block but doesn't detail the full response structure; however, the schema provides some parameter details, so overall it's sufficiently complete.

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 only 43%, and the description adds significant meaning to the `messages` parameter by explaining both modes. However, it does not elaborate on `focus`, `limit`, `verbosity`, or `agentId`, leaving those underspecified. The offset parameter's mode-specific behavior is already in the schema, so the description's partial compensation is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 that the tool 'Return only the 'Right Now' lane' with a specific resource name, and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the two modes (sandbox and connected). It mentions 'each item with why-surfaced' which adds specificity about the output.

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?

It explicitly describes when to use each mode: 'pass `messages`' for sandbox and 'OMIT `messages` with RADMAIL_API_KEY' for the real inbox. It also provides a prerequisite (API key) and links to where to get it. It lacks an explicit comparison to alternative tools, but the context clearly implies this is the go-to for the Right Now lane.

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