triage_new_mail

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it discloses incremental scanning, emphasizes it never deletes/unsubscribes (consistent with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint), and explains the three return groups. However, it does not clarify how 'last scan' is determined or behavior on first run.

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 concise (three sentences plus a bullet-like list) with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then provides negative constraints, and finally details output 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?

While the description covers the tool's purpose and return format adequately, it lacks explanation of parameters and operational details like how 'last scan' is tracked per account or folder. An output schema would further help, but missing parameter semantics is a notable gap.

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 description makes no mention of the parameters (account, folders), despite 0% schema coverage. The agent must infer parameter use from names alone, missing critical context like the behavior of the optional folders parameter.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('triage'), resource ('new mail'), and scope ('since the last scan, incremental'). It lists three distinct return categories (suggestions, new_senders, attention) and explicitly says what it does not do (delete/unsubscribe), making differentiation from siblings like scan_mailbox or start_scan_job implicit.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_mailbox or start_scan_job. It implies incremental use but offers no context for selecting this tool over others.

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