mistral_list_inbox

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context by specifying the location ('inbox/') and the state ('waiting to be transcribed'), which helps the agent understand the scope without redundant safety details.

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 a single, clear sentence that immediately states the action and target. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition, earning every word.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and safe annotations, the description fully covers the core functionality. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and where it operates, which is sufficient for selecting and invoking it 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description accurately describes what is listed without needing to explain parameter syntax.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'audio files in inbox/ waiting to be transcribed.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like mistral_list_recordings by specifying a particular location and status, making its function unambiguous.

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 'waiting to be transcribed' provides clear context for when to use the tool (to see pending audio files) and implies it is not for reviewing already transcribed files. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list naturally helps.

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