get_inbox

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: credential fields in `config` are masked in the response, and a privileged scope is required. It doesn't describe error behavior for a missing or unauthorized ID, but the key surprises are surfaced.

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 masking warning and permission note are front-loaded and worth their space. The leading "Get Inbox" heading restating the tool name and the trailing "Tags: Inboxes" / raw route line are generated boilerplate that adds no decision value.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers identity, scope requirement, and response masking — enough to call it correctly. Only error and not-found semantics are absent.

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% and the single `id` parameter is already documented as an integer path parameter. The description's "by ID" adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Description gives a specific verb and resource ("A single inbox by ID") and explicitly contrasts with the sibling list route ("Unlike the inbox list"). An agent can distinguish this from get_inboxes without inspecting either schema.

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 supplies a real decision-relevant condition: this route requires the `inboxes:manage` permission, implicitly steering unprivileged callers to the list endpoint. It stops short of naming get_inboxes as the explicit fallback, so the routing is inferable rather than stated.

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