ClawAIMail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that creation is optional due to auto-creation, which adds some context, but fails to cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether the inbox is permanent or temporary, error conditions, or what happens on success. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and a key behavioral note about auto-creation. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error handling, dependencies, or how it interacts with siblings like 'delete_inbox'. The optionality hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the overall gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'username' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples beyond the schema's example. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 action ('Create a new email inbox') and resource ('email inbox'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'delete_inbox' or 'list_inboxes' beyond the obvious verb difference, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides some implied guidance by noting that a default inbox is auto-created if needed, suggesting this tool is optional. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus relying on the auto-creation, nor does it mention alternatives like 'account_info' for checking existing inboxes, leaving usage context incomplete.

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