email_read_inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that credentials (email and password) are required, whether the tool is safe or destructive, or any other behavioral constraints. The description is vague.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is overly minimal and could be restructured to include key details without sacrificing brevity.

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 lack of output schema, param descriptions, and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how authentication works, or expected behavior for parameters like folder. The tool has moderate complexity (4 params) and the description falls short.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (folder, limit, email, password). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field names, which are insufficient 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 'Read emails from an inbox.' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like email_get or email_search, which may also read emails. The purpose is clear but lacks distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as email_search or email_get. There is no context about prerequisites, filters, or exclusion criteria. The description provides no usage direction.

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