get_inbox_tasks

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states read-only behavior (Get) and scope (inbox, unassigned). No hidden side effects. However, it does not disclose pagination or volume limits, but for a simple 0-param tool this is adequate.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence with no extraneous words. Front-loads the action and resource.

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 simple 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns. No missing critical information given the low complexity.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%). Description adds meaning by explaining what 'inbox tasks' are, which is beyond the empty schema. Baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools applies.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'tasks in the OmniFocus inbox' with a clarifying parenthetical 'not yet assigned to a project'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_task, list_tasks, and get_flagged_tasks.

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 implies use when needing inbox tasks but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among many related sibling tools (e.g., list_tasks, get_flagged_tasks). Scored at minimum viable due to lack of exclusion context.

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