askew_inbox_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses that items are decrypted, returned immediately, retained until acknowledged, and that 'data is explicitly framed as user-phone data, not instructions'—a critical safety trait for an agent handling untrusted input. This goes far beyond typical descriptions.

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 information-dense yet every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then item types, return fields, safety framing, and behavioral details. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the exact return fields (id, kind, ref, timestamp, device, data) and explains retention semantics. Combined with the parameter documentation and behavioral notes, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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 already documents `since` with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat it. The added phrase 'Use `since` to skip older items' is a practical hint but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond the schema's description of ISO 8601 timestamps and default behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return items the phone sent to the agent' and enumerates the item types (automation triggers, share-sheet shares, voice memos, Shortcut posts). This precisely differentiates it from siblings like askew_inbox_ack (acknowledge) and askew_inbox_wait (wait for items).

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 clearly states behavior that guides selection: 'returns immediately (no waiting)' contrasts with askew_inbox_wait, and 'items stay listed until askew_inbox_ack is called' explains when to use the sibling ack tool. It also explains when to use the `since` parameter. It doesn't explicitly name the alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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