inbox_history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral burden; it does contribute that results span all inboxes and are sorted most-recent-first, which is real behavioral detail. However, it omits read-only confirmation, whether archived includes threads/replies, and any result-shape or paging behavior beyond the limit param.

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 with zero filler; scope is front-loaded followed by the ordering guarantee. Nothing redundant.

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?

A simple zero-required-parameter browse tool with full schema coverage and no output schema needs little more than this. The main omission is differentiation from read_user_inbox and a hint about what a returned message contains.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit, search, and project are already fully documented in the schema with defaults and matching rules. The description adds only the sort order, which is not tied to any parameter, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('archived messages') with explicit scope ('all inboxes: global + every registered project') and ordering. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling read_user_inbox, which appears to overlap in purpose, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the description alone.

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?

Says nothing about when to prefer this over read_user_inbox, inbox_count, or read_my_replies. The 'archived / across all inboxes' wording hints at a broad historical view, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.

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