sort_inbox

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses reading config files, writing progress logs, skipping already-moved emails, auto-creating folders, and batch processing behavior. No contradictions; all behavioral traits are transparently stated.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (summary, config, logging, batch, args, returns). It is front-loaded with core purpose. Some repetition (config mentioned twice), but overall efficient for the amount of detail.

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 5 optional parameters, output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is comprehensive. It explains rules file, progress log, batch calling pattern, dry run, and defaults. Output schema existence justifies brief return summary, and all essential aspects are covered.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), the free-text 'Args' block fully describes each parameter, including defaults and usage tips (e.g., 'Use 100-200 to avoid timeouts' for batch_size). This adds significant value beyond schema titles.

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?

Description clearly states 'Sort inbox emails into folders by sender using IMAP (fast, for Proton Bridge).' It specifies verb (sort), resource (inbox emails), and method (by sender via IMAP), distinguishing it from sibling tools like imap_bulk_move or move_email which are more generic.

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?

Description explains configuration files, batch processing, and dry-run mode, providing clear context for use. It notes 'Call repeatedly until inbox is clean' but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use this tool compared to siblings.

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