assistantmail_get_inbound_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Gets' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not clarify what the returned settings look like, whether defaults are included, or how authentication/authorization behaves beyond the vague 'authenticated account' phrasing. It is not contradictory, but it is thin.

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. It names the action, resource, and scope efficiently, and every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter getter, the description covers the core purpose. However, the lack of an output schema and annotations means the agent is left without return-format expectations or explicit usage context, and the description does not differentiate it from related sibling tools.

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% and the description never mentions the apiKey parameter or how it should be provided. Since the schema alone provides only a pattern and the description adds no parameter context, an agent receives no meaningful guidance for correctly supplying parameters.

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?

States a specific action ('Gets'), resource ('inbound email policy settings'), and scope ('authenticated account'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like assistantmail_update_inbound_policy and assistantmail_get_me based on read-vs-write behavior and the target resource.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus its alternatives, such as assistantmail_update_inbound_policy for modifying settings or other getters for different resources. There is no mention of prerequisites, authentication flow, or contexts where this tool is preferable.

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