Delimit Notify Inbox

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing side effects per action: action='poll' with process=True forwards owner-action emails (network writes), process=False is dry-run, and action='status'/'history' are read-only. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 well-structured with labeled sections and front-loaded purpose. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because it restates action/process behavior that the schema already documents, but every section serves a clear decision-making purpose.

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?

Given the tool's mixed read/write behavior, three optional parameters, and existing output schema, the description fully covers when to use it, what side effects it may have, how to stay safe with dry-run, and which siblings are alternatives. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already fully documents limit, action, and process. The description reinforces the action/process interplay but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource combination: 'Check inbound email inbox, classify, and route.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings by naming delimit_notify (outbound) and delimit_inbox_daemon (daemon control), so an agent can identify what this tool does without ambiguity.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('to poll the operator inbox and classify which emails require owner action'), when NOT to use it ('to send notifications ... or control the polling daemon'), and provides sibling contrast. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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