list_inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no ordering, no indication of what a scope of None actually returns in volume, and no note about network/rate-limit implications of an open-world read.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and followed by a compact Args block, with no filler. The docstring formatting is slightly raw but costs almost nothing in length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single optional parameter is documented. However, for an open-world read tool with a sibling that fetches a single thread, the definition omits result-set size, ordering, and selection guidance, leaving modest gaps.

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 schema itself declares 'scope' only as a bare string with no enum, so the description does real work by enumerating the accepted values (unread, starred, archived, sent, None) and clarifying that None means all. It stops short of stating the default's effect explicitly or whether other values are errors.

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 verb and resource ('List Canvas inbox threads'), which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling 'get_inbox_thread'. It does not explicitly contrast with that sibling, but the plural/list framing makes the distinction 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating inbox threads, and the scope argument hints at filtering. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'get_inbox_thread', nor any stated preconditions such as authentication or empty-inbox behavior.

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