email_read_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only (likely given the name, but not explicit), what data it returns (e.g., headers, body), or if it marks emails as read. The password parameter hints at authentication, but no details on security or side effects are provided.

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 short (one sentence, 5 words), which is not concise but rather under-specified. It fails to convey essential information that would justify its brevity. A well-structured description would front-load purpose and add key details.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It omits return value structure, pagination behavior, folder scoping, authentication flow, and any limitations. The agent cannot determine how to call or interpret results.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to 'folder', 'limit', 'email', or 'password'. For an email inbox tool, these are critical (e.g., folder defaults, limit meaning, email as identifier, password usage). This gap makes correct invocation nearly impossible.

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 'Read emails from an inbox' clearly states a verb ('Read') and a resource ('emails from an inbox'). However, it lacks specificity compared to sibling tools like 'email_get' (likely fetching a single message) and 'email_search' (querying). This ambiguity could lead to confusion over which tool to use for listing vs. fetching individual emails.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'email_get' or 'email_search'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context to choose appropriately.

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