inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: drafted replies are returned, and the open_file action saves files a person sent to local storage in order to read them — a side effect the annotations do not convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, with scope and sibling routing immediately after. The Args block is not wasteful redundancy here because the input schema provides no property descriptions, though the formatting and spacing are slightly rough.

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 described. For a read-only tool with four optional parameters, the description covers defaults, actions and lookup keys adequately; only edge behavior (no-argument default of 'list', name/chat_id conflict) is left implicit.

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 has no enum for action, so the description carries the full burden — and it documents all four parameters, including the valid action values ('list', 'read', 'open_file', 'comment_drafts') that the schema lacks entirely. It falls short of 5 because comment_drafts is unexplained, chat_id vs name precedence is unstated, and limit is only 'How many to show'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read any conversation in your LinkedIn inbox, and the drafted replies') and explicitly routes the write-like sibling operations to answer_inbox. An agent can distinguish this tool from the adjacent inbox tool without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule: replying, approving a draft and discarding one belong to answer_inbox. It does not explain how to choose between the four actions or when to prefer name over chat_id, but the alternative tool is named rather than left to inference.

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