inbox_triage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Does not send replies', which is the key safety-relevant behavioral trait, and it discloses the SLA default and exact filtering logic. It could mention broader side-effect status more clearly, but the main non-mutating behavior is well covered.

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 compact and information-dense; the unanswered-thread definition and the non-sending caveat both earn their place. The phrasing 'Hostaway's inbox does not compute' is slightly awkward, but there is no unnecessary filler.

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 core concept is explained, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns and how slaHours/listingId affect the result. It also gives no guidance about how this relates to sibling tools, leaving an agent uncertain about calling conventions and expected output.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains slaHours via 'Default SLA is 2 hours', but it never names either parameter and gives no explanation of listingId's role. An agent can guess listingId means 'filter by listing', but the description does not actually support that.

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 identifies the tool as an unanswered/SLA view of Hostaway's inbox and defines the unanswered condition with concrete criteria (latest message incoming, or hasUnreadMessages with no later host reply). It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the resource and computation are recognizable, and 'Does not send replies' distinguishes it from reply-sending tools.

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 SLA and unanswered-thread logic imply this tool should be used for triage-style inbox filtering, but the description never says when to prefer it over related sibling tools like list_conversations, list_messages, or report_inbox. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing conditions.

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