List Inbox Threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses that results are thread *summaries* rather than message bodies, which explains why get_inbox_thread_messages exists as a follow-up. It says nothing about pagination defaults, result ordering, or caps (limit max 500) that affect how an agent iterates.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the workflow instruction. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 tool with 18 optional parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, two sentences are not enough — the agent gets no guidance on filter combinations, pagination strategy, or what a 'thread summary' contains. The safety side is complete thanks to annotations, but the calling side is under-specified.

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% across 18 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and names none of them. It only says 'filters for triage', giving no hint about snoozed/archived/attention/actionable_only/label_ids/platforms or date-range semantics, leaving the agent to infer behavior from bare parameter names.

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 ('List Hyperstar inbox thread summaries') and adds scope ('with filters for triage'), which is clearer than the bare name. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_inbox_aggregates, which an agent could easily confuse with a summary-listing call.

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 line 'Call get_inbox_thread_messages before drafting replies' gives one explicit sequencing rule and names the sibling to use next. However, it never says when to use this tool versus get_inbox_aggregates, nor which of the many filter modes is appropriate for which triage scenario.

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