get_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that this is a read operation (Category: Tasks — Read) and mentions authentication (Auth: V1). It also documents the single parameter. However, it does not discuss limits, pagination, or edge cases like empty results.

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 concise, using a single-sentence purpose, a metadata block, and a parameter list. Every part adds value without unnecessary repetition.

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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the core functionality, parameter meaning, and related tools. It is adequately complete for an agent to use 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 description explains the 'include_completed' parameter with its default value and effect, adding meaning beyond the input schema's type and default. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states 'Return tasks from the TickTick Inbox,' specifying the verb and resource. The inclusion of related sibling tools like get_project_tasks and get_all_tasks helps distinguish it as inbox-specific.

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 lists related tools (get_project_tasks, get_all_tasks, create_task), providing context for when to use this versus alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusion criteria.

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