check_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool lists recent emails with summary information, suggesting a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose ordering details beyond 'latest', pagination behavior, whether unread state is changed, or what summary fields are returned.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant repetition. It efficiently communicates the core action, scope, and result type.

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?

For a relatively simple list tool, the description is adequate, and the schema covers all parameters. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description leaves some uncertainty about the exact return fields, sorting, and any side effects, so it is not fully complete.

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 100%: limit, folder, and unreadOnly all have clear descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies without further enhancement.

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 states a specific action ('listeler'), a resource ('en son e-postaları'), and a clear scope (inbox or specified folder). It also conveys that results are summaries, which hints at a difference from full-content tools like read_email, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use check_inbox versus alternatives such as search_emails, triage_inbox, or read_email. The description implies a general inbox-checking use case but provides no exclusions, alternative routing, or context to help an agent choose among the many email tools.

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