triage_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses critical behavior: the auto-provisioning when token is omitted, and the safety handling of untrusted email content with provenance marking. It also mentions the permanent hard-stops in the response's safety block, adding meaningful context beyond what the schema reveals.

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 core batch purpose and includes essential provisioning and safety information without redundancy. The safety warning is a bit long, but every sentence adds necessary value for this 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?

The description explains what the tool does and flags important safety behavior, but it does not describe the response structure beyond the safety block, nor does it mention error semantics or state effects. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail on return content and limitations would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description compensates for only token (auto-provisioning) and messages (untrusted data). Parameters like focus, limit, agentId, and verbosity are neither described in the schema nor in the description, leaving the agent without needed semantics for correct invocation.

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 performs a one-call triage over a batch of messages, covering the Right Now lane, open commitments, and hard-stops. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_right_now or list_commitments, which focus on individual lanes.

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 use when you need the entire RadMail wedge in a single round-trip rather than multiple separate calls, and gives explicit guidance about omitting token for auto-provisioning. However, it does not name alternatives or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a fully explicit when-to-use vs. not-to-use guide.

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