listTeamInboxes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure, but it only repeats the obvious 'list' operation and adds no information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. It essentially restates the tool's name without elaboration.

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 a single, concise sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and sized for the simplicity of the operation.

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?

Although the tool has zero parameters and a simple action, the description omits crucial context such as what a 'team inbox' is, whether the response includes pagination, or any special behavior. Without an output schema, the description should provide more context but fails to go beyond the bare minimum.

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 has zero parameters, and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and it correctly implies the operation takes no arguments.

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 'List all team inboxes' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read operation for team inboxes. It is self-contained and distinguishes itself from sibling tools via the unique resource 'team inboxes', though it does not explicitly compare to alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate scenarios.

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