listInboxAppInstallations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'list' statement by revealing the authentication need and the specific 404 error for unregistered accounts. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it omits details about the success response format.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: what it lists and the required condition for success. Adding a note about the return structure could improve completeness, but it is not critical given the straightforward nature of the operation.

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 input schema is empty (no parameters), so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here, and the description appropriately does not invent unnecessary parameter details.

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' with the noun 'inbox app installations', clearly indicating the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inboxAppInstall and inboxAppDeactivate, making its purpose 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?

It clearly states the prerequisite of a registered third-party system (FUB_SYSTEM + FUB_SYSTEM_KEY) and the error condition on unregistered accounts, providing actionable context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, though no direct alternative for listing installations exists among the siblings.

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