triage_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses safety aspects (untrusted data, hard-stops) and auto-provisioning, but does not detail side effects (e.g., does it mark messages?), auth requirements, or rate limits beyond the token hint.

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) and front-loads the core purpose. It earns its space by adding safety and parameter hints, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 (6 params, 10 siblings) and no output schema, the description lacks essential context: what the response contains beyond safety, how messages are processed internally, and definitions of domain terms like 'Right Now lane' or 'hard-stop'.

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 only 33%, and the description adds meaningful context only for `token` ('OMIT to auto-provision'). It does not explain `focus`, `limit`, `agentId`, or `verbosity`, which have no schema descriptions, leaving a significant gap.

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 uses specific verbs and resources ('ONE round-trip over a batch of messages', 'the whole RadMail wedge in a single call'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'triage', 'list_right_now', and 'list_commitments'.

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?

Explicitly mentions omitting `token` for auto-provisioning and gives safety instructions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, though the scope (Right Now+commitments+hard-stops) implicitly guides choice.

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