get_inbox_messages

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the scope requirement and does not state that this is a read-only operation, describe authentication behavior when no token is provided, or disclose rate limits or pagination details. The 'get' verb implies non-mutation but is not explicit.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose immediately. The Args section is brief and adds necessary parameter details without unnecessary filler. It earns its place while remaining compact.

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 simple read tool with an output schema and two parameters, the description covers the basics. However, it omits the distinction between 'inbox messages' and the sibling get_unread_messages/get_sent_messages, and does not clarify whether an absent access_token falls back to stored credentials. These gaps matter for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 description adds meaningful value beyond the bare schema: it specifies that access_token is optional and that limit must be in the 1–100 range with a default of 100. The schema only shows type and default, so these constraints are genuinely helpful for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get user's inbox messages') which clearly conveys the action. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_unread_messages or get_sent_messages, leaving an agent to guess whether this returns all inbox messages or only some subset.

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?

No usage guidance is provided beyond stating the required scope. The description does not explain when to choose this over get_unread_messages, get_sent_messages, or other message-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative approaches.

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