inbox_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden: it declares READ-ONLY, states the sort order, and discloses a non-obvious behavioral guarantee (keyset pagination keeps pages stable even while new messages are acknowledged). It stops short of covering auth/permission requirements or rate limits.

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?

A single dense sentence; the operation and its scope come first, and the read-only declaration is a clean trailing flag. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all four parameters are documented at 100%. The remaining gap is minor: no note on auth/permission expectations for reading the global inbox, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, cursor, profile and agent_id in detail. The description adds only the conceptual meaning of the cursor (keyset pagination), which is useful framing but not parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb (List), resource (acknowledged/read messages), ordering (newest-first) and pagination model. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like inbox_peek by scoping to already-acknowledged messages, but it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (you call this to review what you've already acknowledged), and the parenthetical about stable pages while acknowledging hints at a concurrent-workflow use case. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to a sibling alternative.

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