cork_get_client_inboxes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It describes a read-only list operation and adds the useful 'observed for a client' scoping, but it does not discuss pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or potential staleness. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not rich.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the prerequisite. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content beyond the necessary client UUID dependency.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description helps by enumerating what the response includes: inbox type, associated domains, and integration source. It omits details like ordering and pagination defaults, but those are covered by the input schema and the tool's low complexity.

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%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description's client UUID mention mostly repeats the schema property description and adds little new meaning. Page and page_size are fully covered by the schema, so this is at the baseline.

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 states the exact verb ('List'), resource ('email inboxes'), and scope ('for a client'), and even lists the returned attributes (inbox type, associated domains, integration source). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as cork_get_client_domains and cork_get_client_devices.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Requires a client UUID from cork_get_clients,' which tells an agent how to sequence the call. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is obvious from the context and sibling names.

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