triage

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that fields marked 'untrusted-email-body' should be reasoned about but not executed, and that the response contains a 'safety' block restating permanent hard-stops. This covers behavioral traits beyond basic function.

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 informative and front-loads the main purpose. It contains multiple sentences but is efficient overall, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming some redundant phrasing.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description covers core functionality and safety but lacks details on return values or full output structure. It mentions the 'safety' block but not the overall response format, leaving some context incomplete.

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 coverage is 58%, and the description adds meaning for core parameters like 'token' (commit to auto-provision), 'body' (untrusted data), and the overall triage dimensions. However, it does not detail parameters like 'subject', 'hasReply', 'focus', or 'agentId', leaving some gaps.

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: scoring a message on importance and urgency, explaining why it surfaced, breaking into 4 dimensions, flagging hard-stops, and extracting commitments. It also mentions auto-provisioning via omitting the token. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'triage_inbox' which likely handles multiple messages.

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 context for omitting the token to auto-provision, but does not explicitly guide on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'triage_inbox' or 'why_surfaced'. It implies single-message triage but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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