why_surfaced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool provides an explanation and includes safety fields and hard-stops. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or permission requirements. The safety information is valuable but incomplete.

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 mostly concise, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The safety paragraph is necessary but adds length. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured and easy to understand.

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?

The description explains the purpose and safety aspects but does not detail the response structure beyond mentioning a 'safety' block. For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, more context about the explanation format and behavior would improve completeness.

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 58%, and the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It mentions 'fields marked provenance: untrusted-email-body' but that refers to data handling, not parameter semantics. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage or relationships.

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: to explain in plain English why a message was surfaced, listing specific signals (sender, urgency words, commitment, hard-stop). However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'triage' or 'triage_inbox', which might also provide explanations.

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 includes important safety guidelines about handling untrusted email body data and mentions permanent hard-stops. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'triage' or 'list_right_now'. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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