list_my_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination, ordering, or any side effects. While listing suggests idempotency, the agent is left guessing about critical details like limits or required authentication.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with content, no wasted words. The structure efficiently conveys purpose and usage in a minimal format.

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 description covers what the tool returns (three feed types) and its purpose (planning). It lacks output schema but provides enough detail for an agent to understand the response contents. Missing details like format or limits, but adequate for a simple list tool.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as there are none to document.

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 tool returns a combined feed of three specific resources: open offers (tier-eligible), active assignments, and bids. It uses a specific verb+resource pattern and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_bid and withdraw_bid by focusing on listing rather than actions.

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 phrase 'Use this to plan your next action' provides clear context for when to invoke, but no explicit exclusion of alternatives. Since no sibling tool lists the same items, the guidance is sufficient but lacks contrast with other tools.

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