canvas_inbox_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (subjects, preview, participants, status), which adds useful context beyond basic listing. However, it doesn't cover aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core action, followed by return details and usage context in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, returns, and basic usage, though it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like pagination or error cases to fully compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'filter' parameter fully documented via enum and description. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Canvas inbox conversations'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like canvas_inbox_get (which likely retrieves a single conversation) by focusing on listing multiple conversations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all related tools like canvas_notification_list.

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?

The description provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Use to check messages from instructors and classmates,' which suggests when to use it. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., vs. canvas_inbox_get for details) or exclusions, and doesn't clarify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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