triage_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: scanning, grouping by importance, and producing an actionable summary. It does not mention side effects such as whether emails are marked as read or moved, though 'scans' weakly implies a read-only operation. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence front-loads the action, scope, grouping logic, and output format. Every element earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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 tool is moderately complex and has no output schema, but the description states that the result is an 'actionable summary report', which covers the return value. It also conveys the grouping logic and source. Minor gaps remain around the exact report structure and any mutation side effects, but they are not severe for a bulk triage tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with defaults and meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter semantics fully.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'bulk scans recent emails in the inbox', then adds a distinctive grouping behavior by importance with concrete categories (Security, Finance, Urgent Tasks, Newsletters). This clearly separates it from siblings like read_email, search_emails, and check_inbox, which do not offer a grouped summary report.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: it is useful when an agent needs a broad triage of the inbox rather than a single email read or search. However, the description does not state when not to use it or name an alternative such as check_inbox or analyze_email.

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