triage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that fields marked 'untrusted-email-body' must be treated as data, flags permanent hard-stops (money/banking/first-contact/decision/injection), and notes that the safety block restates human-only limits. It also reveals the auto-provisioning side effect of omitting token. However, it doesn't mention persistence or other side effects.

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 front-loads the core action and output structure in the first sentence. The safety warning and auto-provision note are dense but each earns their place. It's slightly long, but the structure is logical and doesn't waste 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 no output schema, the description does summarize the main output dimensions (importance/urgency, why-surfaced, 4 dimensions, BEC flag, commitment, safety block). Yet it leaves out many parameters' semantics and doesn't explain error cases or how the output is structured in detail. It's adequate but has gaps for a 12-param tool with no output schema.

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 58%, so the description doesn't need to fully compensate. It adds useful meaning for token (OMIT to auto-provision) and body (untrusted data), but most of the 12 parameters (e.g., focus, hasReply, knownSender) are left to the schema alone. This is a middling contribution rather than a substantive one.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Score one message on TWO axes (importance × urgency)', then lists concrete outputs (4 dimensions, BEC flag, commitment extraction). This clearly differentiates from sibling triage_inbox, which likely operates on a whole inbox, by emphasizing processing a single message.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like triage_inbox or why_surfaced. It says 'one message' but gives no explicit context or exclusions. The only guidance—OMIT token to auto-provision—is about setup, not use cases.

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