get_actionable_threads

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses ranking by urgency and pendingOn filtering. Also explains syncBefore refreshes index from IMAP, a key side effect. Lacks mention of default unreadOnly behavior, but overall strong.

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?

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose, immediate use case, and alternative tools. Every sentence is essential and no redundancy. Highly efficient structure.

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?

No output schema, but the description covers the tool's primary function, key filters, and alternatives. Without specifying return format, it still provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly in a triage workflow.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how pendingOn filter distinguishes 'waiting on you vs. them', going beyond schema details. This pushes the score to 4.

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 returns mailbox threads ranked by reply urgency and filtered to actionable items. It distinguishes from siblings like get_inbox_digest (broader summary) and get_threads (unranked list), scoring high on specificity.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for daily triage' and suggests preferring get_inbox_digest for broader summary and get_threads for unranked list, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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