get_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate that this is a read-only listing of recent recruiter conversations, which is the core behavior. However, it omits important behavioral context such as authentication requirements, output shape, pagination, and what 'recent' means in terms of returned data.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient for a simple list operation and gets the core intent across immediately. It does not abuse brevity to the point of tautology, but it omits some valuable context that could be provided without bloating the description.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and the operation. However, it does not address login/session requirements or explain the optional limit param, which an agent needs to predict call failures or control the response volume.

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?

There is a single optional 'limit' parameter, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions limit or how pagination/truncation behaves. The parameter name and default value provide some meaning, but the description adds no parameter-level information.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List your recent recruiter conversations on Naukri'. It conveys exactly what the tool does and uses the inbox framing, which separates it from siblings like get_conversation. It lacks an explicit contrast with get_conversation, but the plural list framing makes the purpose reasonably clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_conversation, get_recommended_jobs, or other Naukri tools. It also does not mention that an active Naukri session is likely required before calling it. An agent must infer usage context from the sibling tool list and the word 'inbox'.

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