get_inbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the read operation and optional filter but lacks details on ordering, pagination, rate limits, or that it returns only the user's own inbox. More behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse.

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 inbox retrieval, the description is adequate but could be more complete by specifying the return format (e.g., list of messages) or any important behavioral details. The lack of an output schema increases the need for such information.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-described. The description adds the 'optionally filter to unread only' which aligns with unread_only, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for limit. 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 clearly states it retrieves the user's message inbox with an optional unread filter. The verb 'Get' and resource 'inbox' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like send_message (write) and get_dashboard (dashboard overview).

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 implies usage for reading messages but provides no explicit guidelines on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., get_dashboard or get_profile). No exclusions or context are given.

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