list_inbox

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 describes the return format (sender, subject, date, messageId, folderId) which is helpful, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, sorting order, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably accesses user data.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and return format. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage. The information is front-loaded and immediately useful.

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 read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic functionality but lacks important context. It doesn't explain the 'recent' timeframe, sorting behavior, or what happens when count exceeds available messages. The return fields are listed, but without an output schema, the agent doesn't know data types or structure. The description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 single parameter 'count' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 action ('List recent inbox messages') and specifies the resource ('inbox messages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'search_emails' tool, which might also return messages. The description specifies the returned fields (sender, subject, date, messageId, folderId), which helps clarify scope but doesn't fully distinguish from 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling tools like 'search_emails' or 'read_email'. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit contextual guidance.

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