get_inbox_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning AI suggestions, which hints at generative behavior, but does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is generic and lacks detail on what happens if no emails are present.

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 with bullet points listing return items and a clear one-sentence summary of intent. No extraneous words, though the structure could be slightly more organized (e.g., separate usage from return 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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (unread counts, mailboxes, AI suggestions). However, it could mention that it aggregates across all accounts (which is implied but not explicit) and does not describe any limitations or performance considerations.

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 tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining that the output includes unread counts, mailboxes, and AI suggestions, which goes beyond a bare schema.

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: get a comprehensive overview of inbox status across all accounts. It lists specific return items (unread counts, mailboxes, AI suggestions) and distinguishes from more specific sibling tools like get_mailbox_unread_counts or get_awaiting_reply.

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 implies usage for a broad overview to prompt suggestions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_mailbox_unread_counts or search_emails. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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