List my inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds no behavioral details beyond restating the action—no pagination, sorting, scope behavior, or return format is mentioned. Since annotations cover safety, the low burden is met, but no extra context is provided to qualify for a higher score.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the purpose. It is efficient with no fluff, but it duplicates the title without adding new information. Still, for a simple listing tool, this level of brevity is appropriate.

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 simple with only one optional parameter and no output schema. The description states the resource (inbox conversation threads) but does not clarify what the response contains or how scope affects results (e.g., archived or sent are only included if scope is set). Given the sibling tools, a bit more context would help, such as noting that the default scope excludes archived/sent, but the schema partially addresses this.

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?

The schema fully documents the single optional 'scope' parameter with an enum and description. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage (100%). The parameter's purpose is clear from the schema itself.

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 clearly states the action (list) and the resource (inbox conversation threads). It is specific enough to differentiate from tools like get_conversation or get_unread_count, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The title and description are nearly identical, but the verb and noun make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as canvas_get_conversation for a specific thread or canvas_get_unread_message_count for counts. No exclusions, scenarios, or hints about when this tool is preferred are given. The single sentence is purely declarative.

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