summarize_inbox

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

No annotations are provided. The description implies a read-only operation by stating it returns data, but does not explicitly declare no side effects. It mentions the time range parameter (since_days) but omits permission or rate-limit details.

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 very concise: two sentences, 31 words. It front-loads the core purpose ('One-call inbox overview') and efficiently lists outputs without redundancy.

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 covers the return format well (counts, top senders, histogram) but fails to explain 3 out of 4 parameters. Given the existence of an output schema, return values are partially handled, but parameter ambiguity reduces 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description explains only the 'since_days' parameter ('for the last since_days days'). Other parameters (account, folder, top) are left to inference from their names and defaults, which is insufficient for full clarity.

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 provides an 'inbox overview' with specific outputs (counts, top senders, histogram). It is distinguished from sibling tools like count_emails and list_emails by its aggregative nature.

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 gives clear context: 'One-call inbox overview' implies quick summary instead of detailed listing. It also highlights usefulness for multiple aliases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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