get_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the scope (all workspaces) and categories of content (pending approvals, unread activity, assigned steps), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention sort order, side effects, or error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 the action and resource, then the trigger phrases. Every clause adds value and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 optional pagination only. The description explains what the feed contains and when to use it, which is mostly complete given the rich schema. It does not describe the exact return shape or pagination metadata, but with no output schema and simple list semantics, this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the params page and limit are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, placing this at the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('user's 'For You' feed') with concrete contents (pending approvals, unread activity, assigned steps). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_motions, which would list motions more generally, and approve/reject, which are individual 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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use triggers: 'Use this when the user asks 'what's on my plate', 'what needs my attention', or similar.' It gives clear context for usage but does not mention when NOT to use it or point to alternatives, so it misses the highest bar.

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